^RY  OF  PRificir^ 


^^■OL 


OG/GAL  SiW' 


BV  825  .A6  1862 
Alexander  and  Rufus 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS; 


OR  A  SERIES  OF 


f  iakp^  uit  Sljurdj  Sflmmuukii, 


IN    TWO    PARTS. 


PART     I. 


VINDICATION    OF   SCRIPTURAL    CHURCH   COMMUNION    IN   OPPOSI- 
TION  TO    LATITUDINARIAN    SCHEMES. 

PART   II. 


DEFENCE   OF    THE   COMMUNION    MAINTAINED   IN    THE    SECESSION 

CHURCH. 


:■"       \ 


^'dan  ifoo  toalli  toge%r,  tuti^i  %g  ht  agreeb." — Amos  iir 


PUBLISHED  BY  THE 


ASSOCIATE    SYNOD   OF    NOETH    AMERICA 

18  62o 


PRISTED   BY  SINGBRLY    ds  MYEBB,   P1TS'SBUR<1H. 


PREFACE 


It  is  now  held  by  many,  tliat  there  may  be  several  articles  in  tlie  pub-- 
lie  profession  of  a  particular  church,  which,  however  clearly  founded  on 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  are  not  essential  or  necessary  to  salvation,^and  there- 
fore ought  not  to  be  terms  of  church  communion.     "The  obviously  vital 
doctrines  of  the  gospel,"  say  they,  "which  whoever  renounces  cannot  be 
a  christian,   are   a  sufficient  basis  of  sacramental  communion."     This 
scheme,  under  the  plausible  name  of  catholic  and  liberal  communion,  is 
much  recommended  in  various  popular  writings  of  the  present  day,  par- 
ticularly, in  a  recent  publication,  entitled,  "  A  Plea  for  Sacramental  Com- 
munion on  Catholic  Principles."     This  Plea  the  author  pretends  to  found 
upon  scriptural  principles  concerning  the  nature  of  the  christian  church, 
and  upon  approved  examples  of  her  sacramental  communion  in  the  times 
of  the  apostles,  and  in  what  have  been  termed,  the  first  and  second  periods 
of  the  reformation.     Though  the  scheme  pleaded  for  seems  not  only  con-* 
trary  to  the  constitution  and  practice  of  the  christian  church,  but  even  to 
the  nature  of  human  society  ;  for  it  is  obvious,  that  there  are  many  things 
in  the  common  order  of  any  regular  society,  which  cannot,  in  strictness, 
be  deemed  essential  to  its  existence  ;  and  yet  no  person  is  admitted  a  mem- 
ber of  it  without  consenting  to  the  whole  of  that  order.     The  publication 
now  mentioned,  by  continually  keeping  the  true  state  of  the  question  out 
of  sight,  by  the  abuse  of  detached  passages  of  scripture,  by  the  pretence 
of  being  countenanced   by  human  authorities,  by  pathetic  declamation, 
and  peremptory  assertions,  is  remarkably  calculated  to  seduce  from  the 
scriptural  order  of  church  communion,  and  to  promote  that  laxness,  which 
has  too  long  prevailed  in  the  protestant  churches,  and  deprived  them,  in 
so  great  a  measure,  of  tlieir  purity  and  true  glory.     Such  an  attempt, 
therefore,  as  is  now  submitted  to  the  judgment  of  the  public,  seems  to  be 
a  proper  means,  through  the  Divine  blessing,  of  leading  them  to  exercise 
their  judgment  in  comparing  the   scheme  of  sacramental  communion  so 
much  extolled  in   this  Plea,  with  the  holy  scriptures,  and  with  the  exam- 
ple of  the  church  of  Christ  in  i'ormer  periods.     Several  just  observations 
on  Dr.  Mason's  Plea  have  been  already  otfered  to  the  public  by  the  Rev. 
Messrs.  Black  and  liankin.     But  their  seemed  to  be  a  peculiar  call  to  con- 
sider the  subject  farther  in  its  connection  with  the  Secession  Testimony, 
The  prevailing  influence  of  latitudinarian  tenets  in  the  established  church 
of  Scotland  occasioned  the  erection  of  the  secession  church.     Hence  Mr, 
AVilson  of  Perth,  in  his  excellent  "  Defence  of  Eeformation  Principles," 
justly  exposes  the  lax  principles  of  those  who  wrote  in  favor  of  the  judi- 
cial proceedings  of  that  church  against  the  members  of  the  As-sociate  Pres- 
bytery.    Mr.   VVillison's  appearance  against  that  presbytery,  in   what  is 
entitled  "  his  Impartial  Testimony,"  (which  in  many  things  respecting 
the  Seceders  certainly  deserves  to  be  termed  "partial.")  was  a  native con^ 


IV  PREFACE. 

eequence  of  his  joining  with  others  in  giving  countenance  to  the  minis- 
trations of  Mr.  Whitefield,  an  eminent  apostle  of  latitudinarianism. 
Though  the  objections  in  Mr.  Willison's  Testimony  were  answered  mate- 
rially by  Mr.  Wilson's  Defence  now  mentioned,  before  he  made  them  ; 
and  more  formally  by  Mr.  Gallatly  afterwards  ;  yet  as  these  writings  are 
now  hardly  to  be  met  with,  especially  in  this  country  ;  and  as  an  edition 
of  Mr.  Willison's  Testimony  has  been  lately  printed  and  dispersed  here, 
a  particular  consideration  of  his  objections  was  necessary. 

The  plans,  now  recommended  with  regard  to  the  union  of  separate  bod- 
ies of  professing  christians,  call  their  attention  to  the  subject  of  these 
Dialogues.  For  the  pursuing  of  these  plans  will  be  either  beneficial  or 
destructive  in  their  tendency,  according  as  the  scheme  of  communion 
which  they  lead  the  uniting  powers  to  adopt,  is  consistent  or  not  so,  with 
the  word  of  God  and  with  faithfulness  to  his  cause.  In  these  conversa- 
tions, while  corruption  is  the  native  consequence  of  latitudinarian  schemes, 
scriptural  order  in  sacramental  communion  tends  to  make  the  visible 
church  a  heaven  upon  earth  to  the  faithful,  terrible  as  an  army  with  ban- 
ners to  her  enemies,  and  to  her  King  and  Head  for  a  name,  for  a  praise 
and  for  glory. 

Some  will  perhaps  blame  the  writer  of  these  Dialogues  for  having  at- 
tempted to  revive  old  controversies.  But  it  is  too  evident,  that  the  errors, 
which  occasioned  the  controversies  here  exhibited,  still  exist,  either  in  the 
same  form  or  in  their  bitter  fruits.  In  the  course  of  each  of  these  contro- 
versies, there  have  been  such  precious  examples  of  what  the  Lord  has 
done,  and  what  he  has  enabled  his  servants  to  do  and  suffer  for  his  cause, 
as  ought  never  to  be  forgotten.  Besides,  a  farther  decision  in  favor  of 
truth  and  duty  which  have  been  openly  denied  and  reproached  is  to  be  ex- 
pected from  Zion's  strong  Redeemer,  who  will  thoroughly  plead  her  cause, 
and  who  will  have  the  public  injuries  done  to  that  cause  acknowledged. 
In  short,  the  writer  would  not  have  given  a  fair  account  of  the  Secession 
Testimony,  if  he  had  passed  over  any  of  these  controversies  in  silence. 

With  regard  to  the  form  of  dialogue,  it  was  chosen  by  the  writer  as  it 
seemed  to  suit  better  than  continued  discourse  with  the  variety  of  subjects 
that  were  to  be  treated  of.  He  is  far  from  pretending,  that  these  Dialogues 
are  entitled  to  the  praise  of  finished  conversation-pieces.  He  has,  how- 
ever, endeavored  to  avoid  improprieties  ;  and  in  the  part  of  Alexander, 
the  reader  will  observe  a  diversity  of  style  and  manner,  as  he  constantly 
states  the  objections  in  the  words  of  the  writers  from  whom  they  were 
taken. 

The  Appendix  to  the  second  part  contains  observations  on  a  variety  of 
points  belonging  to  what  may  be  called  the  present  truth,  in  which  the  peo- 
ple of  God  ought  to  be  established. 

The  writer  now  leaves  this  work  in  the  hands  of  Him,  whose  acceptance 
through  Jesus  Christ  is  the  best  reward  of  the  labors  of  his  servants; 
and  on  whose  blessing  all  their  success  and  usefulness  depend.  That  the 
hearts  of  those  who  peruse  these  Dialogues  may  be  warmed  with  love  to 
the  truths  of  God  and  to  the  peace  of  his  church,  is,  through  grace,  the 
desire  of  their  servant  for  Jesus'  sake. 

JOHN  ANDERSON. 

Service,  October  20th.  1820. 


INDEX 


ABJURATION  OATH. 

A  national  sin 272  273- 

APOSTLE'S  CREED, 

No  example  of  what  is  termed  catholic  communion, 100 

Consent  to  all  the  doctrines  and  commands  delivered  in  their  inspired  writings, 

the  term  of  sacranjental  communion  in  the  primitive  church, 101 

ASSOCIATE  PRESBYTERY, 

Formation  of. 222 

Their  cause  in  opposition  to  the  defections  of  the  Established  Church,  exhibited 

gradually 246 

AUGSBURGH  CONFESSION, 

As  to  the  article  concerning  Christ's  presence  in  the  sacrament, 146 

MR.  BAXTER, 

Anecdote  concerning  him, 187 

His  Neonomian  scheme, , 314  331 

BELGIC  CONFESSION, 

Its  account  oi  a  true  church  considered 135  138 

SOME  BURGKSS  OATHS. 

A  decision  of  the  As^sociate  Synod  concerning  a  religious  clause  in  them, 417 

The  justice  of  that  decision. „ 417^  420 

Breach  in  the  Synod  occasionad  by  the  question,  whether  that  decision  should  be  a 

term  of  communion  or  not, 423,  428 

CALVIN,  MR. 

His  scheme  for  promodnga  union  among  the  churches, 151 

CAMPBELL,  MR.  ARCHIBALD. 

Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  his  errors, 284,  288 

The  procedure  of  tlie  General  Asseinlily  in  his  case, 292  295 

CATHOLIC  OR  LATITUDINARIAN  COMMUNION,  ' 

The  nature  and  tendency  of  it , 93  94. 

Instances  alleged  to  be  examples  of  it  shown  to  be  impertinent, 66*  74 

CHARLES  THE  SECOND, 

In  wlnt  Fpspect  disowned  by  martyrs, 408  410 

CHURCH  COMMUNION,  ' 

Distinguishable  from  the  communion  of  saints, 170< 

Not     wairaitahle  in  some  cases  with  those  wiih  whom  Christ  has  comniunion L3 

Nor  in  s-ome  cases  with  thuse  who  belong  to  the  Catholic  church 59 

But  those  who  call  on  the  Lord  Jesus  in  the  scriptural  import  of  that  character,. .  49 

COMMON  BENEFITS, 

As  such,  not  purchased  by  Christ 35O 

COMMUNION 

Of  the  visible  church  stated, 7 

COMMON  EXPRESSIONS 

Cono.  rning  it.  which  may  be  used  either  in  a  true  or  fals«sense, 190 

CONFESSIONS  OFFaITH. 

Shown  to  be  warrantable  terms  of  communion 30 

CONFESSIONS  OF  THE  REFORMED  CHURCHES, 

The  desi^^n  of  them 138 

Their  harmony  as  to  religious  rites, 142 

And  as  to  church  government, 14* 

COUNCILS, 

Their  authority  in  the  ancient  church, ,  1C4 

COVENANT, 

The  Solemn  League,  the  import  of  that  engagement, 168.   409 

COVENANTING.  PUBLIC,                                       &  »            >  ,     oi, 

Warrantable, , 355 

Useful 368 

Seasonable  at  present, 38o 

The  evaagelical  manner  ot  coTenanting,....,„ 3g4 


vi  INDEX. 

COVENANT  ENGAGEMENTS 

Bindingon  posterity,  .,.,..    ^ 359 

DECLINATURE 

Ofthe  Associate  Presbytery, 234 

MR.  DICKSON, 

A  passage  in  a  letter  written  by  him, 266 

DI^IPLINE, 

Of  the  church  inconsistent  with  what  is  termed  catholic  Comraimion..., 38 

Persons  excluded  for  their  errors  from  sacramental  communion  by  the  discipline  of 

the  ancient  church, 103 

DIVISIONS, 

In  the  church,  the  evil  of, 3 

False  methods  of  healing, , ,,^,    d 

DONATISTS. 

Their  opinions  and  practice, 112 

ELDERS.  RULING, 

The  key  of  d  )Ctrine  not  committed  to  them  as  distinct  from  teaching  elders, 430 

ERRONEOUS  TKACIIKKS, 

The  lawfulness  of  refusing  to  attend  on  the  public  administrations  of  those  who 

are  justly  accounted  such, , 83 

EBENEZER  ERSKINE, 

Passages  of  his  sermons, ,.  24S.  267 

ETHIOPIAN  EUNUCH, 

His  admissiDU  to  baptims  no  example  of  latitudinarian  communion, 177 

EXCOMMUNICATION, 

The  proper  objects  of  it, 434 

FAITH, 

An  appropriation  of  Christ,  in  the  nature  of, 320 

FALSE  DOCTRINE, 

PropHgated  in  the  communion  of  the  General  Assembly  without  judicial  censure, 
FORSAKING  OF  SIN, 

Not  attainable  before  our  coming  to  Christ, ,..,..       C12 

FRANCE, 

The  reformed  church  of,  proposals  concerning  union  with  the  protestant  churches,      155 

GOSPEL, 

Shown  to  be  a  free  grant  of  a  Saviour, 816 

GOSPEL, 

As  such,  shown  to  be  the  ground  of  justifying  faith, 316 

Distinction  hetwi-en  the  gnspel  taken  strictly  and  properly  and  taken  largely, 328 

GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  CHURCH, 

Opinions  of  the  fathers  concerning  it,  no  proof  of  their  practicing  latitudioarian 

communion, 123 

HALL, 

On  church  communion,  strictures  on,  • 380 

HOLINESS, 

Or  good  works,  not  a  federal  condition  of  justification  and  salvation 327 

HOLL\ND, 

The  communion  ofthe  church  there,  no  example  of  latitudinarian  communion, 159 

HYMNS. 

Of  human  composure,  used  in  the  public  praises  ofthe  church,  a  corruption,.. 456 

INDULGENCES, 

The  acceptance  of,  justly  condemned, 258 

IRENEUS'S  CrtEED. 

No  proof  that  the  sacramental  commnuion  in  the  primitive  church  was  latitudina- 
rian,          100 

JUDICIAL  TESTIMONY, 

Ofthe  A-:sociate  Presbytery,  its  publicatpn, 222 

Mr.  Willison's  opinion  of  it, 2.d3 

A  passage  of  it  ceiusidered  concerning  James  the  second's  toleration, 261 

An  expression  ol  it  concerning  the  prevalence  of  error  justified, 2.t5 

KISSING  THE  GOSPELS, 

A  superstitious  form  of  swearing, 274 


LAWS, 

The  distinction  between  the  Law  of  works  and  law  of  Christ  scriptural, 344 

The  freedom  of  believers  from  the  former,  hot h  in  its  commanding  and  condemn- 
ing power,  vindicated, ; 3S.5 


INDEX.  vii 

•    The  judicial  law  not  binding  on  nations  under  tli«  New  Testament  as  their  muni- 
cipal law, 4  ili 

LOGAN,  MK. 

A  lotttT  written  by  liiiu  before  his  death, 34iJ 

L0T3, 

The  use  of  them  without  necessity  or  in  trivial  matters  sinful, 304 

LOVE,  CHRISTIAN 

The  pretence  of  promoting  it  by  means  of  laitudinarian  communion,  vain 86 

MAGISTRATE, 

To  whom  obedience  is  due  in  his  lawful  commands,  described, 388 

The  duty  of  that  obedience  proved  by  the  precepts  of  scripture, 390 

By  examples, 396 

MARKS, 

Of  a  true  church  in  the  confessions  of  the  reformed  churches,  contrary  to  latitudi- 

nariaa  communion, 132 

MASON  OATH, 

Justly  condemned, 307 

NATIONAL  COVENANTING, 

Warrantable, 368 

NOVATIANS, 

An  account  of, 112 

OATH, 

The  warrantable  mode  of  taking  it, 274 

REFORMATION, 

The  covenanted  described, 253 

RESOLUTION,  PUBLIC, 

The  evil  of, 257 

REVOLUTION, 

In  1688,  the  evils  of  church  and  state  with  regard  to  the  settlement  of  religion  at 

that  time, 208 

f:;ECESSION, 

Consistent  with  a  due  regard  to  the  unity  of  the  church. 240 

Objections  against  it  considered,  from  the  reijpect  due  to  our  mother  church,... 233 

I'rom  the  case  of  churches  reproved  in  the  New  Testament, 234 

Communion  of  our  Saviour,  of  Nicodemus  and  of  Joseph  of  Arimathea,  with  the 

Jewish  church, 237 

Precedents  of  the  secession  in  the  church  of  Scotland 242 

SECESSION  OF  SOME  MINISTERS, 

From  the  established    church,  justifiable  on   other  grounds  than  their  violent 

extrusion, 249 

SECESSION  TESTIMONY, 

In  the  United  Statesof  America,  maintained  on  various  accounts, 443 

SECTARIAN, 

The  meaning  of  this  epithetas  applied  to  church  communion, 92 

SEPARATION, 

From  a  particular  church  not  always  separation  from  the  catholic  church, 92,  132 

MR.  JOHN  SIMSON, 

His  errors, 280 

Procedure  of  the  General  Assembly  in  his  case, 288 

TAXES, 

Payment  of  them  to  an  unlawful  government,  unjustifiable, 410 

TRUTHS  OF  GOD'S  WORD. 

Distinction  between  the  essential  and  non-essential,  considered. 18 

All  Divine  truths  to  be  received  and  maintained  by  the  church, 25 

Representation  of  some  of  them  as  matters  of  forbearance  in  the  church,  consid- 
ered   28 

UNIFORMITY, 

Of  the  ancient  church,  inconsistent  with  latitudinarian  communion,'. 103 

UNIVERSAL  REDEMPTION, 

An  act  of  the  Associate  Synod  against, 349 

VITRINGA, 

Observations  of  his  concerning  church  communion, 123,  242 

WESTMINSTER  ASSEMBLY, 

The  design  of, 169 

Their  confession  of  faith  a  term  of  sacramental  communion, 170 

The  twenty-sixth  chapter  of  that  confession  not  for,  but  against  latitudinarian 

communion 172 


ALEXANDER  AND  BUFUS 


OB  A  SEBIES  OF 


DIALOGUES    ON    CHURCH   COMMUNION. 


PART    FIRST, 


|n  fe^klj  scripfttral  tljurc^  communion;  is  slahb  Hnb  binbitaljeb  in 
opposition  to  lalitubinarian  sc^cmjes. 


Rom.  XV.  With  one  mind  and  one  mouth  glorify  God,  even  the  Father  of 
onr  Lord  Jesns  Christ. 

1  CoRESTTH.  1.  10.  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jestis 
Christ,  that  ye  all  speak  the  same  thing,  and  that  there  be  no  divisions  among 
you ;  but  that  ye  be  perfectly  joined  together  in  the  same  mind  and  in  the  same 
judgment. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS, 


PART    FIRST, 

In  tvhich  scriptural  church  communion  is  stated  and  vindicated 
in  ojyposition  to  latitudinarian  schemes. 


DIALOGUE  I. 

The  evil  of  divisions  in  the  church — Some  separations  from  particular  churches 
pnlawful — Secession  from  corrupt  churches  lawful — False  methods  of  healing 
divisions — Scriptural  church  communion  stated — An  approbation  of  the  public 
pi-ofession  of  a  particular  church  implied  in  the  partaking  of  her  sacramental 
communion — The  distinction  between  the  essentials  and  the  non-essentials  of 
Christianity,  considered. 

Alexander  and  Rxjfus  were  both  ministers  of  the  Presbyterian 
denomination  ;  both  desired  the  welfare  of  the  church  of  Christ;  but 
they  had  different  views  of  the  present  state  of  the  church,  and  of 
the  means  which  ought  to  be  used  for  promoting  its  welfare.  Rufus 
considered  it  as  his  duty  to  warn  his  hearers  against  whatever  he 
judged  contrary  to  the  word  of  God  in  the  public  profession  and 
avowed  practice  of  the  various  denominations  of  christians.  Alex- 
ander, on  the  contrary,  was  careful  to  avoid  controversy  in  his  dis- 
courses addressed  to  the  people.  Satisfied  with  the  declaration  of 
those  truths  which  he  reckoned  the  more  important,  he  seldom  stated 
those  which,  he  knew,  were  denied  by  other  denominations,  among 
Protestants  ;  and  said  nothing  of  the  sinfulness  or  danger  of  their 
errors  They  lived  near  one  another  ;  and,  notwithstanding  their 
different  opinions,  they  often  had  friendly  interviews.  One  evening, 
as  they  took  a  walk  together  in  the  fieldS;  they  had  the  following 
conversation  concerning  church  communion. 

§  1.  Alexander.  I  have  been  much  engaged  for,  some  time  past 
in  considering  the  evil  of  divisions  in  the  church.  By  division  the 
hearts  of  christians  are  alienated  from  one  another ;  and  instead  of 
edifying  conversation,  they  exhaust  themselves  in  contentions  and  end- 
less debates.  Amidst  this  wrangling,  the  professors  of  the  christian 
religion  neglect  the  practice  of  it,  and  others  are  hardened  in  their 
open  infidelity. 


4  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

RuFUS.  The  divisions  of  the  church  are  greatly  to  be  lamented, 
they  are  awful  signs  of  the  divine  displeasure  and  presages  of  ap- 
proaching judgments.  .  But  the  radical  evil  of  them  is  commonly 
overlooked,  which  consists  in  men's  hatred  of  the  truth  revealed  in 
the  word  of  God,  and  in  their  refusing  to  be  determined  in  matters 
of  religion  by  his  authority.  When  a  division  takes  place,  we  should 
enquire,  on  which  side  truth  is  held  in  opposition  to  error.  In  the 
division  between  the  Jews  and  Samaritans,  our  Lord  plainly  deter- 
mined, that  the  truth  was  held  in  the  profession  of  the  former,  and 
not  in  that  of  the  latter.  "  Ye  worship,  ye  know  not  what,"  said  our 
Lord  to  the  woman  of  Samaria :  "  we  know  what  we  worship,  for 
salvation  is  of  the  Jews." 

§  2  The  sin  of  those  who  separate  from  a  particular  church,  be- 
cause she  faithfully  censures  them  for  avowing  or  propagating  opinions 
contrary  to  the  scriptures,  or  for  persisting  in  sinful  and  offensive 
practices,  is  manifest.  "These  are  they,"  says  the  apostle  Jude, 
*'  who  separate  themselves."  Such  are  all  separations  for  maintaining 
Arian,  Socinian,  or  Arminian  tenets ;  or  for  carrying  on  Episcopal 
or  Independent  schemes  in  the  government  of  the  church.  Nor  can 
they  be  justified  or  excused  who  make  or  keep  up,  a  separation  from 
the  communion  of  a  particular  church  from  groundless  prejudices,  or 
from  an  attachment  to  local  or  ancient  customs,  for  which  no  warrant 
can  be  found  in  the  holy  scriptures.  Separation  from  a  particular 
church  is  not  always  justifiable,  on  account  of  the  real  evils  that  may 
be  found  in  her.  Wrong  steps  in  the  public  administration  of  her 
officers ;  or  errors  which  she  is  evidently  disposed  to  correct,  and 
which  she  does  not  make  a  precedent  for  her  future  conduct,  are  no 
sufficient  grounds  of  secession  from  her  communion.  A  church  may 
have  many  defects,  and  yet  be  in  a  reforming  state  :  she  may  not  be 
despising  scriptural  testimonies,  that  are  given  against  her  errors ; 
nor  neglecting  any  other  means  of  attaining  more  conformity  to  the 
word  of  Christ,  in  doctrine,  worship,  and  government :  while  this  is 
the  case,  her  remaining  defects  would  not  warrant  us  to  make  or  con- 
tinue a  separation  from  her  communion. 

Alex.  In  my  opinion,  Rufus,  separation  from  a  particular  church 
that  can  be  jnstly  called  a  true  church  of  Christ,  is  almost  always 
wrong.  Whatever  may  be  pretended,  passion  or  prejudice  is  usually 
at  the  bottom  of  it. 

§  3.  RuF.  You  allow,  however,  that  there  are  lawful  separations 
from  particular  churches ;  such  as  our  secession  from  the  church  of 
Rome. 

Alex.  With  regard  to  the  church  of  Rome,  God  has  described  her 
as  Anti-christian,  as  totally  gone  off  from  the  foundation,  impure  in 
doctrine,  idolatrous  in  worship,  usurping  and  tyranical  in  her  gov- 
ernment. She  is  called  Sodom  for  filthiness,  Babylon  for  pride  and 
cruelty,  and  Egypt  for  darkness,  idolatry  and  oppression.    Hence,  the 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  5 

people  of  God  are  commanded  to  come  out  of  her,  that  they  may  not 
partake  of  her  plagues.  I  grant  also  that  we  ought  not  to  have  sac- 
ramental communion  with  a  church  or  religious  society,  that  imposes 
any  sinful  term  of  communion.  But  with  regard  to  the  regular  Pro- 
testant churches,  that  have  clearly  expressed  their  orthodoxy  in  their 
confessions  of  faith ;  from  these  churches,  although  differing  with  us 
in  some  external  modes  and  forms,  we  never  separated,  and  we  ought 
not  to  reject  their  communion. 

RuF.  You  allow,  sir,  that  the  church  communion  which  is  offered 
upon  sinful  terms  is  to  be  avoided,  but,  as  a  Presbyteriau,  you  must 
grant,  that  such  are  the  terms  upon  which  the  church  of  England  ofl'ers 
her  communion  ;  for  she  requires  of  all  her  members,  (what  they  can- 
not submit  to  without  sin,)  an  acknowledgement  of  the  authority  or 
lordship  of  the  diocesan  bishop  over  other  pastors,  and  the  observation 
of  all  the  religious  ceremonies  appointed  in  her  liturgy.  Hence  we 
may  warrantably  separate  from  her  communion,  though  she  be  one  of 
the  regular  Protestant  churches.  Nay,  though  a  particular  church 
should  not  expressly  require  any  sinful  terms  of  communion,  it  would 
be  warrantable  to  withdraw  from  her  communion  on  account  of  her 
obstinacy  in  holding  error,  or  in  refusing  to  make  a  public  and  par- 
ticular profession  and  acknowledgement  of  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus, 
in  opposition  to  the  errors  of  the  present  time  and  the  teachers  of 
them  ;  because  something  positive,  particularly  a  public  confession 
of  the  truths  of  God,  that  are  openly  denied,  by  such  teachers  is  re- 
quisite in  order  to  warrantable  church  communion ;  for  the  church  to 
which  we  may  warrantably  join  ourselves,  ought  to  be  one  which 
maintains  and  professes  the  true  doctrine  and  the  true  faith  ;  she 
ought  to  bear  the  character  of  the  church  of  the  living  God,  which 
is  the  pillar  and  ground  of  truth.  It  would  be  unwarrantable  for  us 
to  join  in  communion  with  a  church  whose  members,  for  the  most 
part,  maintain  and  profess  Arminian  errors,  or  Arian  blasphemies, 
though  it  were  not  required  as  a  term  of  communion,  that  we  should 
expressly  approve  such  a  profession.  When  corruption  prevails  in 
a  particular  church,  the  faithful,  being  the  minor  party,  ought  first  to 
use  means,  such  as  petitions,  remonstrances,  protestations,  for  re- 
claiming the  majority.  But  if  these  means  prove  unavailing,  and  the 
corrupt  majority  obstinately  persist  in  their  defection  from  the  purity 
of  religion  which  the  church  had  attained,  it  is  then  the  duty  of  the 
faithful  part  of  the  society  to  withdraw  from  the  corrupt  majority. 
The  ministers,  particularly,  of  such  a  faithful  party  ought  to  do  Avhat 
is  impracticable  in  conjunction  with  that  majority :  they  ought  to 
fulfill  the  ministry  which  they  have  received  of  the  Lord,  not  only  by 
every  one,  in  his  individual  capacity,  teaching  sound  do(!trine  and  re- 
futing the  errors  that  prevail ;  but  also  by  a  joint  exercise  of  the 
ministerial  authority  which  the  Lord  hath  given  them,  in  condemning 
such  errors,  in  asserting  God's  revealed  truth  in  express  opposition 


«  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

to  them,  and  in  thus  exhibiting  a  judicial  testimony ;  in  order  that 
they  and  the  people  adhering  to  them  may  appear  as  one  confessing 
body,  striving  together  with  one  mind  for  the  faith  of  the  gospel. 
When  such  is  the  prevailing  corruption  of  a  particular  church,  call  it 
a  regular  Protestant  church,  or  what  you  will,  the  secession  of  those 
who  are  faithful  in  maintaining  the  cause  of  truth  in  opposition  to  the 
body  of  its  ministers  and  other  members,  becomes  lawful  and  ne- 
cessary. 

§  4.  Alex.  These  judicial  declarations  and  testimonies,  instead 
of  healing,  tend  to  increase  our  divisions. 

RuF.  I  am  persuaded,  however,  that,  while  they  are  such  as  main- 
tain no  other  doctrines  than  those  contained  in  the  word  of  God,  they 
are  of  a  healing  tendency.  For,  these  declarations  and  testimonies, 
in  specifying  the  errors  which  are  propagated  in  the  visible  church, 
call  men's  attention  to  the  true  causes  of  her  divisions,  which  cannot 
be  healed,  unless  the  causes  of  them  be  attended  to  and  removed. 
Besides,  they  direct  men  to  relinquish  the  false  and  deceitful  methods 
of  union  which  have  been  dictated  by  carnal  policy ;  methods  of 
''healing  the  wound  of  God's  people  slightly,"  Jer.  vi.  14,  or  "of 
daubing  with  untempered  mortar,"  Ezek.  xiii.  19,  11. 

Alex.  What  are  these  methods  which  you  censure  with  so  much 
severity  ? 

RuF.  One  of  them  is  that  of  the  church  of  Rome,  which  requires 
all  to  agree  in  receiving  implicitly  the  dictates  of  the  church,  that  is, 
of  a  pope  or  council,  or  both,  in  matters  of  religion.  But  this  scheme 
proceeds  upon  the  supposition  that  the  scriptures  are  not  a  perfect  or 
not  a  plain  rule  of  faith  and  practice ;  and  leads  us  to  found  our  faith 
on  the  authority  of  men  instead  of  the  authority  of  God. 

Another  method  is  that  of  allowing  magistrates  to  compel  their 
people  to  a  particular  profession  of  religion  by  civil  penalties.  This, 
as  well  as  the  popish  scheme,  attempts  to  deprive  men  of  the  liberty 
of  judging  for  themselves  in  matters  of  religion  ;  and  supposes,  that 
men  may  be  made  members  of  a  particular  church  by  military  force. 
The  civil  magistrate  as  such,  not  being  any  officer  in  the  church,  has 
no  right  to  administer  its  ordinances,  and  far  less  to  prescribe  its  doc- 
trines or  the  terms  of  its  communion. 

A  third  method,  which  obtains  in  the  Greek  and  Roman,  and  in 
some  measure  in  other  churches,  is  that  of  attracting  people  to  their 
communion  by  the  charms  of  music  and  the  use  of  ceremonies,  which 
are  recommended  not  only  by  ancient  use  and  prescription,  but  by 
their  eifecton  the  imagination  and  passion,  which  govern  the  ignorant 
and  unprincipled.  But  true  church  union  is  to  be  promoted  by  keep- 
ing the  ordinances  of  God  pure  and  entire,  by  the  knowledge  and  love 
of  divine  truth. 

The  fourth  method,  which  is  highly  extolled  by  many  in  our  day, 
is  that  which  directs  all  to  join  together  in  sacramental  communion, 


ALEXANDER   AND    RUFUS.  1 

who  hold  the  essential  articles  of  the  christian  religion ;  and  which 
condemns  the  practice  of  those  who  refuse  sacramental  communion  to 
any  on  account  of  their  rejection,  however  open  and  obstinate,  of 
non-essential  articles  of  that  religion ;  even  though  these  articles  be 
''  important  and  worthy  to  be  contended  for  with  zeal  and  constan- 
cy." *  This  bears  the  specious  and  alluring  name  of  catholic  sacra- 
mental communion. 

§  5.  Alex.  What  is  your  notion  of  church  communion  ? 

Rup.  I  shall  state  what  I  believe  to  be  the  truth  concerning  that 
communion  according  to  the  scriptures.  In  the  first  place,  the  visible 
communion  of  christians  in  any  particular  church,f  consists  in  their 
declared  agreement  to  adhere  to  one  public  profession  of  the  christian 
religion,  and  in  their  joint  endeavors  to  maintain  and  propagate  that 
profession.  As  the  agreement  of  citizens  to  support  one  civil  gov- 
ernment, may  be  called  civil  communion ;  and  an  agreement  of  a 
number  of  men  to  unite  their  efforts  for  the  raising  of  a  weighty  or 
for  the  working  of  a  ship,  may  be  called  mechanical  communion  ;  so 
the  agreement  of  a  number  of  christians  to  adhere  to  and  maintain 
one  profession  of  the  christian  religion,  is  religious  or  church  com- 
munion. Hence  the  visible  communion  of  christians  is  expressed  in 
scripture  by  the  holding  fast  of  their  profession,  one  profession  only, 
not  many  or  different  professions  ;  (Heb.  iv.  14,  x.  23,)  by  glorifying 
Grod  with  one  mind  and  one  mouth ;  (Rom  xv.  Q,)  and  serving  him 
with  one  lip. J  Their  communion  among  themselves  in  the  exercises 
of  religious  worship,  and  in  all  the  other  parts  of  their  christian 
practice,  belongs  to  the  joint  maintaining  of  one  profession  of  the 
christian  religion. 

In  the  second  place,  this  profession  is  a  profession  of  the  whole 
christian  religion.  We  cannot  warrantably  decline  the  explicit  pro- 
fession of  one  jot  or  tittle  of  it ;  since  the  authority  of  the  Divine 
Testimony,  which  binds  us  to  receive  any  part,  binds  us  equally  to 
receive  the  whole.  All  that  truly  belongs  to  the  christian  religion 
was  delivered  by  Christ  as  the  great  Prophet  of  the  church ;  and  the 
Divine  injunction  is,  "  Him  shall  ye  hear  in  all  things  whatsoever  he 
shall  say  unto  you."  Acts,  iii.  22. 

In  the  third  place,  while  the  profession  of  the  christian  religion  at- 
tained by  a  particular  church,  as  well  as  her  practice,  is  imperfect ; 

*  Dr.  Mason's  Plea  for  Catholic  Communion,  p.  54. 

t  By  "  a  particular  church,"  as  the  expression  is  used  in  these  dialogues,  is 
meant  a  part  of  the  catholic  church  distinguished  from  other  parts  of  it,  not  by 
the  profession  of  a  diflereut  doctrine,  or  by  a  diflferent  form  of  worship  or  govern- 
ment, all  diversity  in  these  respects  being  unwarrantable ;  but  by  local  situation, 
and  by  having  ditferent  ecclesiastical  judicatories.  The  churches  of  Jerusalem, 
of  Corinth,  of  Ephesus,  of  Rome,  and  others  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament, 
were  such  particular  churches. 

X  Zephan.  iil.  9.  margin. 


8  ALEXANDER   AND    RUFUS. 

and  while  much  of  her  profession  is  rejected  by  many  bearing  the 
christian  name,  it  is  necessary  that  the  articles  of  her  public  pro- 
fession, which  are  the  matter  of  her  communion,  be  ascertained  with 
precision.  In  the  common  affairs  of  life,  there  can  be  no  rational 
communion  among  any  number  of  persons,  unless  the  matter,  about 
which  they  are  to  have  communion,  be  exactly  determined.  Thus,  if 
it  be  the  raising  of  a  heavy  body,  it  is  necessary,  in  order  to  commu- 
nion in  that  work,  to  determine  by  what  means  it  is  to  be  raised ; 
whether  by  a  lever,  for  example,  or  by  a  pulley,  or  by  an  inclined 
plane.  So  in  order  to  the  communion  of  persons  in  a  particular 
church,  it  is  necessary  that  the  articles  of  the  public  profession  which 
she  has  attained  and  which  constitute  the  matter  of  her  communion, 
be  ascertained  by  her  creed,  by  her  confession,  or  by  her  declaration 
and  testimony  ;  and  that  it  should  be  one  important  part  of  the  work 
of  her  ministers,  in  their  public  discourses,  to  explain  and  vindicate 
that  profession.  When  a  church  is  honest  and  faithful  in  the  use  of 
these  means,  it  is  easy  to  know  what  is  the  matter  of  her  communion. 
Faithfulness,  in  this  respect,  is  one  principal  mark  by  which  a  re- 
forming, may  be  distinguished  from  a  backsliding,  church. 

In  the  fourth  place,  every  person  who  joins  in  the  public  ordinances 
of  a  particular  church,  and  especially  in  the  Lord's  supper,  declares, 
that  he  has  communion  with  her  in  her  public  profession,  as  it  is  as- 
certained by  such  means,  as  those  now  mentioned  ;  and  acknowledges 
it  to  be  his  own  profession.  For  the  public  profession  that  is  made 
in  the  participation  of  the  public  ordinances  of  Christianity,  can  be 
only  one ;  that  is,  the  profession  of  the  particular  church  in  which 
those  ordinances  are  administered. 

In  fine,  persons  cannot  reasonably  pretend  to  have  communion  with 
a  particular  church  in  her  public  ordinances,  and  especially  in  the 
Lord's  supper,  while  they  openly  persist  in  an  obstinate  opposition  to 
any  article  of  her  profession.  Persons  may  indeed  share  in  that  com- 
munion, who  have  but  a  small  measure  of  knowledge  :  as  they  may 
have  communion  in  a  secular  affair,  who  have  little  influence  or  op- 
portunity of  promoting  it ;  but  obstinate  opposers  can  have  no  com- 
munion in  it  at  all. 

These  principles  are  agreeable  to  the  representation  which  the  apos- 
tle gives  of  the  partakers  of  the  Lord's  supper.  "  We  being  many," 
says  he,  '*  are  one  bread  and  one  body  ;  for  we  are  all  partakers  of 
that  one  bread,"  1  Cor.  x.  17.  According  to  these  words  our  par- 
ticipation of  one  bread  in  this  ordinance  imports  a  joint  profession  of 
the  christian  religion ;  just  as  partaking  of  the  sacrifices  in  the  idol's 
temple  imported  a  joint  profession  of  idolatry.  As  christians,  in  re- 
ceiving the  Lord's  supper,  partake  of  one  bread  ;  so  they  make  one  pro- 
fession of  the  christian  religion.  The  profession  of  receiving  Christ,  as 
tendered  in  the  Lord's  supper,  is  a  profession  of  the  whole  christian  re- 
ligion.    For  it  is  a  profession,  not  only  that  we  rely  on   Christ  as  a 


ALEXANDER   AND    RUFUS.  9 

Priest  for  pardon ;  but  that  we  fully  assent  to  all  he  teaches  us  as  a 
Prophet ;  and  that  we  cordially  submit  to  all  the  laws  and  ordinances 
which  he  has  delivered  to  us  as  our  King, 

The  catholic  scheme  of  sacramental  communion,  which  you  men- 
tioned, differs  from  that  of  the  apostles  in  two  respects :  First,  a 
public  profession  of  the  whole  christian  religion  is  necessary  to  the 
sacramental  communion  of  the  apostle,  for  it  implies  a  joint  profession 
of  receiving  Christ  as  tendered  to  the  partakers.  Whereas,  the  pub- 
lic profession  of  those  parts  only  of  the  christian  religion,  which  are 
termed  essential,  is  necessary  to  sacramental  communion,  according 
to  this  catholic  scheme.  Secondly,  the  public  profession  of  each  com- 
municant is  the  profession  of  all  who  partake  of  the  same  sacramental 
bread,  according  to  the  apostle.  But  according  to  this  catholic 
scheme,  the  public  profession  of  some  of  the  partakers  may  be  differ- 
ent from,  and  in  some  respects  opposite  to,  the  profession  of  the  rest. 

The  profession  of  religion  which  is  made  by  the  partakers  of  the 
Lord's  supper  in  any  particular  church  is  to  be  considered,  either  as 
a  merely  personal,  or  as  a  joint  profession.  If  it  be  considered  as 
merely  personal,  or  as  the  profession  of  each  individual  only,  there 
may  be  as  many  different  professions  as  there  are  partakers  ;  and 
there  will  be  no  communion  at  all  in  the  same  profession.  On  this 
supposition,  the  apostle  could  not  have  justly  inferred  from  their 
partaking  of  that  one  bread,  that  they  are  one  body.  But  if  the 
profession  made  in  the  act  of  communicating  be  a  social  or  joint  pro- 
fession ;  then  it  must  be  the  profession  of  the  society  or  particular 
church,  by  whose  ministers  this  ordinance  is  dispensed.  No  other 
public  profession  of  the  christian  religion  is  or  can  be  made  in  the 
act  of  communicating  in  that  particular  church. 

Alex.  The  case  of  occasional  sacramental  communion,  has  been 
compared  to  that  of  a  christian  invited  by  his  pagan  neighbor  to  an 
entertainment,  stated  by  the  apostle  in  the  chapter  from  which  you 
have  just  now  quoted  a  passage,  1  Cor.  x.  27,  28.  If  the  pagan,  having 
set  meat  before  his  guest,  say,this  meat  is  a  sacrifice  to  an  idol  god,  the 
christian  ought  not  to  eat;  a  condition  that  was  not  mentioned  in  the 
invitation,  is  introduced  ;  a  condition  which  would  make  the  christian, 
if  he  should  eat,  a  partaker  of  his  neighbor's  sin.  But  if  no  such 
thing  is  intimated  by  his  pagan  host,  he  may  freely  eat,  asking  no 
questions  for  conscience  sake.  So  if  I  sit  down  at  the  table  of  the 
Lord  in  another  church,  or  receive  one  of  her  members  to  that  holy 
table  in  my  own,  neither  my  act  nor  his  can  fairly  be  construed  as 
more  than  an  act  of  communion  in  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord  ; 
while  this  act  is  not  coupled  with  an  express  or  known  *  condition 
which  is  sinful. 

Rup.  The  case  you  refer  to,  as  stated  by  the  apostle,  seems  to  me 

*  Dr.  Mason's  Plea  for  Cath.  Communion,  p.  333. 


10  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

very  diflferent  from  the  occasional  comraunion,  of  which  you  speak. 
In  the  case  alluded  to,  the  christians  had  no  reason  to  consider  an  en- 
tertainment, not  in  a  temple,  but  in  a  private  house,  not  professedly 
in  honor  of  any  idol,  but  for  bodily  refreshment  or  civility,  as  con- 
nected with  idolatry,  unless  he  had  received  the  intimation  from  his 
host  which  the  apostle  mentions.  But  no  intelligent  person  who  con- 
siders the  necessary  connexion  between  the  dispensation  of  public  or- 
dinances in  any  particular  church,  and  the  public  profession  of  that 
church,  and  how  the  former  belongs  to  the  latter,  (both  constituting 
one  whole,  of  which  whatever  is  professed  by  that  church  is  a  part,) 
can  be  at  any  loss  to  apprehend  the  danger  of  sacramental  commu- 
nion with  that  church,  while  her  corruption  in  doctrine,  worship  and 
government,  is  such  that  renders  secession  from  her  necessary.  Such 
an  occasional  communion  is  rather  like  the  case  represented  by  the 
apostle  in  the  same  chapter,  (1  Cor.  x.  20,  21  )  of  the  christian  who  is 
invited  to  partake  of  the  sacrifices  offered  to  idols  in  a  pagan  temple. 
I  do  not  say,  that  this  occasional  communion  is  as  grossly  criminal,  as 
the  partaking  of  the  sacrifices  in  these  temples  ;  but  I  say,  that  there  is 
as  little  need  of  an  intimation  to  be  made  to  any  person  concerning  the 
profession  of  a  particular  church  with  which  he  proposes  to  commu- 
nicate, as  there  was,  in  the  apostle's  time,  of  an  intimation  to  be  made 
to  a  person  concerning  the  design  of  the  sacrifices  in  an  idolatrous 
temple.  And  as  a  christian's  partaking  of  the  idolatry  of  the  heathens 
was  justly  inferred  from  his  eating  the  sacrifices  in  their  temple  ;  so 
a  person's  consenting  to  the  profession,  however  corrupt,  of  a  par- 
ticular church,  is  justly  inferred  from  his  sacramental  communion  with 
that  church. 

Alex.  It  is  granted  that  sacramental  communion  implies  unity ; 
but  not  in  these  things  wherein  one  section  of  the  catholic  church  is 
distinguished  from  another.  To  be  united  in  these  things,  is  to  be 
united  in  a  sect.  Such  unity  is  necessary  to  sectarian  communion ; 
but  christian  unity,  or  union  in  Christ,  is  a  sufficient  reason  for  all 
christian  communion.* 

Rup.  The  catholic  church  comprehends  all  that  profess  the  true 
religion.  There  is  a  lawful  and  necessary  division  of  it  into  sections 
in  respect  of  local  situation.  But  when  a  number  of  people,  bearing 
the  christian  name,  combine  together  as  a  distinct  society,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  maintaining  and  propagating  doctrines  and  practices,  which, 
instead  of  belonging  to  the  true  religion,  are  contrary  to  it ;  they 
ought  not,  considered  as  such  a  combination,  to  be  called  a  lawful 
section  of  the  cathohc  church.  It  is  not  denied,  that  they  belong  to 
the  catholic  church  ;  but  it  is  denied,  that  there  ought  to  be  any  such 
section  or  division  in  it.  Thus,  there  ought  to  be  no  section  of  the 
catholic  church,  having  for  the  peculiar  end  of  its  distinct  subsistence, 

*  Plea  for  Catholic  Communion,  p.  359. 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  11 

the  support  of  an  episcopal  hierarchy,  unknown  in  the  scripture,  or  the 
propagation  of  antipaedobaptism,  or  of  anti-scriptural  doctrine,  in 
opposition  to  that  of  God's  election,  redemption  effectual  calliog  and 
the  conservation  of  his  people,  as  delivered  in  the  scripture  ;  or  for  the 
support  of  ways  and  means  of  divine  worship  not  found  in  scripture. 
If  the  catholic  visible  church  were  brought  to  a  suitable  discharge  of 
her  duty,  she  would  abolish  all  such  sections.  But  no  society  ought 
to  be  called  such  an  unlawful  section,  while  it  can  be  shown  that  it 
subsists  as  a  separate  society  for  no  other  end,  than  for  the  maintain- 
ing of  something  in  the  doctrine,  worship  or  government  of  the 
church  which  belongs  to  the  christian  religion  as  delivered  in  the  word 
of  God,  or  for  exhibiting  a  testimony  against  prevailing  errors  and 
corruptions  which  the  scripture  requires  the  catholic  church  to  con- 
demn. Such  a  profession  of  any  party  of  christians  is  no  sectarian 
profession ;  and  a  union  with  them  is  not  a  sectarian,  but  properly  a 
christian  union  ;  and,  being  cordial  and  sincere,  is  a  union  in  Christ; 
and  communion  upon  the  ground  of  this  union  is  truly  christian  com- 
munion. On  the  other  hand,  however  much  of  our  holy  religion  any 
body  of  christians  hold  in  common  with  others,  and  however  many 
of  them  we  may  charitably  judge  to  be  saints,  yet  while  their  dis- 
tinguishing profession  is  contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  communion 
with  them,  as  a  body  so  distinguished,  is  sectarian  communion  ;  as 
it  implies  a  union  with  them  in  that  which  ought  to  be  rejected  by 
the  whole  catholic  church. 

Alex.  There  is  no  argument  for  the  communion  of  different  con- 
gregations, founded  upon  their  union  in  one  sect,  which  is  not  equally 
good  for  the  communion  of  the  sects  themselves,  on  account  of  their 
union  in  one  church-catholic.  To  maintain  the  necessity  of  amalgam- 
ating different  sects  into  one  sect,  in  order  to  communion  among  their 
members,  is  to  maintain  the  necessity  of  amalgamating  different  con- 
gregations into  one  congregation  for  that  end.* 

RuF.  Several  parts  indeed  of  the  catholic  visible  church,  particu- 
larly, congregations  under  one  presbytery,  may  warrantably  hold  sac- 
ramental communion  together ;  because  they  all  make  the  same  pro- 
fession of  the  faith  ;  they  are  one  bread,  one  body.  But  this  is  not 
an  argument  for,  but  against  sacramental  communion  between  many 
other  parts  of  the  catholic  church ;  as  between  Papists  and  Protest- 
ants, between  Socinians  and  Calvinists,  between  Episcopalians  and 
Presbyterians,  between  those  who  are  obstinately  and  openly  declining 
from  certain  points  of  reformation  already  attained .  and  those  who 
are  endeavoring  to  adhere  to  them.  For  these  parties  contradict  one 
another  in  their  public  profession ;  and  therefore  cannot  sincerely  say, 
we  are  one  body,  one  bread ;  we  will  glorify  God  with  one  mind  and 
with  one  mouth. 

*  Plea  for  Catholic  Communion,  page,  361. 


12  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

It  is  evident  then,  that  the  same  argument,  that  is,  the  same  union 
in  one  profession,  which  warrants  the  communion  of  congregations 
with  one  another,  condemns  sacramental  communion  between  those, 
who,  though  they  belong  to  the  same  catholic  visible  church,  make 
professions  of  the  faith  contradictory  to  one  another.  Thus,  there  is 
no  necessity  for  what  you  call  amalgamating  different  congregations 
into  one,  in  order  to  render  communion  between  them  warrantable. 
It  is  only  requisite,  that  these  church  members  agree  in  making  the 
same  profession  of  the  faith,  and  in  a  corresponding  practice.  IJpon 
this  ground  they  may  all  have  edifying  and  comfortable  communion 
together  in  sealing  ordinances,  however  many  different  worshipping 
congregations  they  may  severally  belong  to. 

§  6.  Alex.  It  has  been  proposed,  as  the  true  and  only  safe  rule 
of  interpreting  social  communion,  that  it  should  always  go  as  far  as 
the  acts  that  express  it,  but  is  not  necessary  to  be  extended  farther ; 
and  that  no  particular  act  of  communion  is  to  be  interpreted  as  reach- 
ing beyond  itself;  unless  it  be  coupled  with  other  acts  by  an  express 
or  known  condition.* 

RuF.  Whatever  is  an  express  or  known  end  for  which  any  paticu- 
lar  church  is  erected  and  supported,  is  necessarily  to  be  considered 
as  an  express  and  known  condition  of  sacramental  communion  with 
that  church.  For  none  ought  to  partake  of  the  peculiar  privileges 
of  any  society,  but  such  as  are  friendly  to  the  known  ends,  for  which 
it  subsists  ;  and  therefore  in  partaking  of  these  privileges,  persons  are 
to  be  considered  as  professing  to  be  so.  On  this  principle,  the  apos- 
tle condemned  christians,  who  ate  and  drank  in  the  pagan  temples  as 
chargeable  with  idolatry.  The  public  profession  of  any  particular 
church  declares  the  peculiar  end  for  which  it  subsists  as  a  distinct  and 
separate  body  from  other  churches.  This  is  the  public  profession  of 
the  ministers  of  that  particular  church,  and  of  all  that  sit  down  along 
with  them  at  the  Lord's  table  declaring  themselves  to  be  one  bread, 
one  body.  This  is  the  only  true  and  safe  rule  of  interpreting  social 
communion.  According  to  this  rule  there  is  no  adventitious  condi- 
tion coupled  with  the  act  of  communicating ;  there  is  nothing  intro- 
duced but  what  is  necessarily  implied  in  the  act  itself  as  a  social  act, 
the  act  of  the  society  or  particular  church  in  which  the  Lord's  supper 
is  dispensed.  In  this  interpretation  there  is  no  more  communion 
supposed,  than  what  the  act  of  communicating  in  any  particular 
church  expresses;  no  going  beyond  that  act. 

Alex.  If  the  sacramental  table  were  only  the  property  of  such  a  par- 
ticular church,  then  her  officers  might  require  an  approbation  of  the 
peculiar  ends  of  her  erection  and  subsistence,  as  a  term  of  admission  to 
her  own  table.  But  as  it  is  the  Lord's  table,  and  not  hers,  his  people 
have  a  right  to  a  seat  at  it  without  complying  with  such  a  condition. f 

*  Plea  for  Catholic  Communion,  p.  332  t  Plea  &c.,  p.  19. 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  13 

RuF.  Your  objection  would  be  of  weight  on  the  supposition,  that 
the  ends,  for  which  a  particular  church  is  erected  and  subsists  as  such, 
are  only  of  human  device  and  appointment.  But  if  these  ends  be  no 
other  than  those  which  are  declared,  in  the  holy  scriptures,  to  be  the 
ends  for  which  Christ  erected  his  church;  such  as,  that  the  doctrine 
of  Christ  may  be  purely  preached )  that  there  may  be  no  mixture  of 
human  inventions  in  the  worship  of  God ;  that  the  sacraments  may 
be  rightly  administered ;  that  the  officers  of  the  church,  her  govern- 
ment and  discipline,  may  be  such  as  Christ  has  appointed,  and  no 
other;  then  whoever  openly  opposes  any  of  these  ends,  acts,  in  that 
respect,  contrary  to  the  will  and  command  of  the  Lord  Jesus ;  and 
while  he  is  obstinate  in  his  opposition  to  anything  acknowledged  by 
a  particular  church  to  be  one  of  the  ends  for  which  Christ  erected  his 
church,  he  cannot  be,  in  his  public  profession,  one  bread,  one  body, 
with  those  who  publicly  profess,  that  the  very  thing  which  he  opposes 
is  one  of  these  ends  :  and  therefore  he  cannot  be  a  regular  partaker 
of  the  Lord's  supper,  as  dispensed  in  such  a  particular  church ;  and 
no  one  has  a  right  to  be  an  irregular,  or  disorderly  partaker. 

Alex.  When  I  communicate  with  a  particular  church,  I  acknow- 
ledge her  to  be  a  true  church  of  Christ.  I  acknowledge  her  sacra- 
mental table  for  his  own  ordinance,  where  it  is  my  duty  to  shew  forth 
his  death,  and  my  privilege  to  look  for  a  blessed  experience  of  its 
benefits.  This,  all  this  I  acknowledge  cheerfully,  without  following 
her,  directly  or  indirectly,  in  things  in  which  she  does  not  follow 
Christ.* 

RuF.  This  acknowledgment  must  mean  either  your  public  profes- 
sion, or  the  secret  intention  of  your  mind  in  the  act  of  communicating. 
It  cannot  mean  your  public  profession  in  the  act  of  receiving  the 
Lord's  supper  as  dispensed  in  any  particular  church;  for  the  public 
profession  you  make  in  that  act,  as  it  is  a  social  act,  can  be  nothing 
diflferent,  either  in  quantity  or  quality,  from  that  of  your  fellow  com- 
municants, or  from  that  of  the  particular  church  with  which  you 
communicate ;  and  therefore  it  cannot  be  a  profession  of  some  things, 
such  as  the  particulars  you  have  mentioned,  exclusive  of  other  things 
belonging  to  the  profession  of  that  church.  Nor  can  it  be  a  profes- 
sion you  have  made  at  any  other  time  or  place ;  for,  according  to 
your  own  rule,  the  profession,  made  in  communicating,  should  go  no 
farther  than  the  acts  which  express  it.  But  supposing  that  your 
acknowledgment  means  the  secret  intention  of  the  mind,  it  cannot 
prevent  your  public  profession  from  being  the  same  with  that  of  the 
particular  church  with  which  you  communicate :  nor  can  it  exempt 
you  from  a  participation  in  those  parts  of  her  public  profession,  in 
which  she  does  not  follow  Christ.  I  know  my  friend  abhors  the  ne- 
farious doctrine  of  the  Jesuits  about  mental  reservation  and  the  di- 

*  Plea  &c.,  p.  333,  334. 


14  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

rection  of  the  intention.  But  if  you  should  suppose,  that  by  secret 
acknowledgments  in  your  own  mind  your  public  act  of  communica- 
ting with  a  corrupt  church  is  altered,  and  freed  from  that  participa- 
tion, which  naturally  belongs  to  it,  in  the  evil  as  well  as  in  the  good 
of  her  public  profession,  your  scheme  would  certainly  resemble  that 
of  the  Jesuits,  which  is  so  successfully  ridiculed  in  Pascal's  celebrated 
Provincial  Letters.  If  a  Jesuit  had  proposed,  on  some  account  or 
another,  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  supper  in  a  heretical  church,  he 
would  have  reasoned  with  himself  in  this  manner :  "  I  know  well, 
that  my  joining  with  that  church  in  the  public  and  social  act  of  com- 
municating is  an  acquiescing  in  her  whole  profession  :  Nay,  it  is  all 
the  profession  I  can  make  in  the  solemn  act  of  communicating  with 
her.  It  is  an  act  that  makes  her  public  profession  my  own  This  I 
cannot  do  without  making  some  distinction ;  and  there  is  no  public 
distinction  between  my  act  of  communicating  and  that  of  the  firmest 
members  of  this  heretical  church.  But  since  my  affairs  require  me 
to  join  in  this  act,  I  resolve,  in  order  to  satisfy  conscience,  to  make 
a  distinction  secretly  in  my  own  mind :  I  will  purify  my  act  of  com- 
municating with  this  heretical  church  by  a  right  direction  of  my  in- 
tention. In  the  first  place,  I  intend  to  acknowledge  nothing  of  the 
heretical  part  of  the  public  profession  of  this  church  by  my  public 
and  social  act  of  communicating  with  her  :  thus  my  intention  ia 
rightly  directed  ;  no  matter  how  contrary  it  may  appear  to  the  natu- 
ral import  of  that  act.  In  the  second  place,  I  intend,  by  my  act,  of 
communicating  with  this  heretical  church,  to  acknowledge  what  is 
right  in  her  profession,  such  as,  that  it  is  a  duty  to  celebrate  the 
eucharist  and  my  privilege  to  look  for  experience  of  its  benefits. 
Such  right  things  belonging  to  their  profession,  I  intend  to  acknow- 
ledge, but  no  more.  It  is  true,  no  human  understanding  can  dis- 
cover this  limitation  from  my  act  of  communicating ;  and  these  her- 
etics will  be  led  to  mistake  me  for  one  of  their  own  party.  But  this 
is  only  a  small  matter  of  dissimulation,  which  will  be  abundantly  jus- 
tified by  being  directed  to  a  good  end.  In  the  third  place  I  intend 
to  make  a  better  profession  of  religion  in  time  and  place  convenient.'* 
Thus  men  often  feed  on  ashes;  a  deceived  heart  turns  them  aside, 
and  they  refuse  to  enquire  after  the  lie  that  is  in  their  right  hand.  Is 
not  this  the  case,  when  men  set  themselves  strenuously  to  maintain 
the  lawfulness  of  a  public  and  social  act,  which,  in  its  own  nature, 
necessarily  implies  an  approbation  of  a  profession  including  particu- 
lars, in  which  there  is  not  a  following  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  but  a  de- 
parture from  his  cause  ?  The  scripture  shews  us,  in  many  examples, 
the  danger  of  doing  evil,  or  of  countenancing  it,  under  the  pretext 
of  some  important  duty ;  as  in  Saul's  not  waiting  for  Samuel,  from  a 
pretended  zeal  for  the  divine  ordinance  of  off'ering  sacrifice ;  and  his 
sparing  Agag  and  the  spoil  of  the  Amalekites,  on  a  similar  pretence  ; 
and  in  the  case  of  Uzzah  (who  appears  to  have  been   a  good  man) 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  15 

putting  his  hand  to  the  ark,  in  order  to  prevent  its  falling.  The 
Lord  forbids  Judah  to  go  up  to  Gilgal,  or  to  swear,  "  The  Lord  li- 
veth ;"  though  their  doing  so  was  in  itself  a  commanded  duty,  Jerem. 
iv.  2.  Yet  their  doing  it  in  communion  with  the  ten  tribes  is  forbid- 
den, Hosea,  iv.  15.  They  who  have  justly  withdrawn  from  the  com- 
munion of  any  particular  church  on  account  of  its  corruptions  ;  and 
yet  allow  themselves  in  the  practice  of  occasional  communion  with 
that  church  in  her  public  ordinances,  are  far  more  involved  in  the 
guilt  of  its  corruptions,  than  Naaman  the  Syrian  was,  in  the  guilt  of 
worshipping  Rimmon,  when  he  bowed  in  the  temple  of  that  idol :  for 
they  cannot  pretend,  that  communion  with  such  a  church  is  no  end 
of  their  attendance  on  her  public  ordinances ;  as  Naaman  pleaded, 
that  his  intention,  in  going  to  the  temple  of  Rimmon  and  being  pres- 
ent there,  was  not  to  worship  the  idol,  but  to  serve  his  master.  Gro- 
tius,  indeed,  and  some  other  commentators,  justify  or  excuse  the  con- 
duct of  Naaman.  But  more  candid  interpreters  hold  that  the  indul- 
gence, which  Naaman  desired,  was  unlawful;  that  there  was  such  an 
appearance  of  evil,  such  a  countenancing  of  idolatry  in  it,  as  he  ought 
to  have  avoided,  that  his  presence  in  the  temple  of  Rimmon  in  the 
time  of  the  worship  of  that  idol,  was  a  dangerous  example  to  others ; 
that,  on  such  an  occasion,  he  ought  either  to  have  obtained  leave  of 
absence  from  his  master,  or  to  have  quitted  his  service;  and  that  even 
his  desire  of  pardon  intimated  his  consciousness  of  something  sinful 
in  this  matter. 

Alex.  If  communicating,  as  a  guest  with  another  church,  involves 
in  an  approbation  of  her  sins,  by  the  same  rule  communicating  with 
my  own  church  involves  in  an  approbation  of  hers ;  and  renders  me 
so  much  the  more  inexcusable,  by  how  much  a  transient  act  of  inter- 
course with  a  church  in  her  corruptions,  whether  great  or  small,  is  less 
culpable,  than  that  regular  and  habitual  intimacy  with  her  which  is 
unavoidable  by  her  members.  Whence  it  will  follow,  that  there  can 
be  no  lawful  communion  upon  earth,  and  that  the  most  exceptionable 
and  criminal  form  in  which  it  can  possibly  exist,  is  communion  with 
one's  own  church;  while  a  corruption  or  abuse  is  to  be  found  in  her 
skirts.* 

RuF.  In  considering  this  matter,  it  is  necessary  to  distinguish  be- 
tween the  corruptions  that  are  in  a  particular  church ;  that  is,  such 
corruptions  as  are  found  in  many  of  her  members,  and  such  as  are 
adopted  and  maintained  by  the  church  considered  in  its  ecclesiastical 
capacity.  Thus,  when  Paul  wrote  his  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
there  were  many  errors  and  disorders  in  their  church ;  yet  they  were 
not  adopted  as  a  part  of  their  public  profession.  That  epistle,  in 
treating  of  the  error  concerning  the  resurrection,  represents  it  as  a 
saying  "  of  some  among  them,"  not  as  the  saying  of  the- church  in  its 

*Plea,  &c.,  p.  826,  337. 


16^^*  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

judicial  or  representative  capacity;  and  therefore  a  person  might 
then  have  communicated  with  that  church,  without  being  chargeable 
with  consenting  to  that  error.  But  the  case  of  one's  communicating 
with  a  church,  which  had  adopted  that  erroneous  opinion  as  a  part  of 
its  profession,  would  have  been  quite  different:  especially,  if  that 
church  were  holding  it,  in  opposition  to  a  testimony  for  the  truth  ex- 
hibited by  another  ecclesiastical  body.  Communicating  in  such  a 
case  would  be  evidently  a  falling  away  from  an  open  profession  of  the 
truth  concerning  the  resurrection,  and  from  a  faithful  testimony  against 
the  contrary  error. 

Thus,  the  reason  why  communicating  with  the  episcopal  church, 
would  render  us  chargeable  with  a  public  consenting  to  Episcopacy, 
is  not,  because  some,  or  many  members  in  that  church,  hold  such  an 
opinion ;  but,  because  it  is  an  article  of  its  profession  ;  an  article  on 
which  its  existence  as  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  body  depends.  For 
the  same  reason,  our  communicating  with  the  Methodist  church, 
which  is  distinguised  by  its  denial  of  the  doctrines  of  absolute  pre- 
destination, particular  redemption,  and  the  final  perseverence  of  the 
saints,  would  involve  us  in  the  guilt  of  declining  from  the  profession 
of  these  truths,  and  in  that  of  publicly  admitting  the  contrary  errors. 

I  am  as  far  as  any  from  allowing,  with  the  Brownists  in  the  seven- 
teenth century,  that  communicants,  acting  conscientiously,  are  de- 
filed; or  that  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  supper  is  rendered  unprofit- 
able to  them,  by  the  personal  sins  of  fellow  communicants,  or  by 
any  accidental  abuse  that  may  take  place  in  a  particular  church, 
which  the  most  faithful  endeavors  may  not  be  able  always  to  prevent. 
This  opinion  is  well  confuted  by  judicious  divines,  such  as  Durham 
and  Rutherford, who  wrote  against  these  separatists.  But  it  is  on  a  very 
different  account,  that  I  disapprove  a  person's  occasional  communion 
with  a  particular  church,  whose  profession,  as  it  denies  some  of  the 
truths,  and  changes  some  of  the  ordinances  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  is 
directly  opposite  to  the  profession  of  the  particular  church,  of  which 
that  person  considers  himself  a  member.  I  disapprove  of  such  oc- 
casional communicating,  because  thereby  the  person  declares  the 
profession,  he  had  condemned,  to  be  now  his  own  profession :  in 
this  case,  he  either  renouncesh  is  former  profession  of  the  truth;  or 
he  is  guilty  of  duplicity  and  falsehood. 

It  seems  to  be  a  principle  of  common  sense,  that  no  person  should 
partake  of  the  peculiar  privileges  of  any  society,  unless  he  falls  in 
with  all  the  declared  ends,  for  which  that  society  has  been  erected, 
and  subsists  :  and,  therefore,  a  person  should  not  communicate  with 
a  particular  church,  if  he  disapproves  of  any  of  the  ends  for  which 
it  subsists  as  a  distinct  professing  body  of  christians.  This  principle 
is  no  bar  to  the  communion  of  christians ;  it  only  requires,  that  all 
the  ends  for  which  a  particular  church  subsists,  as  a  distinct  profess- 
ing body,   should  be  such  as  are  warranted  by  the  word  of  God. 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  17 

The  errors  and  coiTuptions  of  persons  and  parties  in  a  church  ;  while 
they  are  not  justified  and  maintained  by  her  in  her  ecclesiastical 
capacity,  nor  have  become  any  part  of  her  public  profession,  do  not 
necessarily  belong  to  the  profession  which  is  made  in  the  act  of  com- 
municating with  her.  But  the  profession  of  the  faith,  which  is  made 
in  that  act,  if  it  is  not  the  profession  of  the  particular  church  which 
administers  the  sacramental  ordinance,  will  be  no  joint  profession  at 
all.  If  there  be  no  joint  profession  of  the  faith  in  the  act  of  commu- 
nicating, we  cannot  know,  that  we  have  any  communion  with  others 
in  receiving  the  same  Saviour ;  for  we  can  have  no  such  communion 
with  others,  but  so  far  as  we  know,  that  they  voluntarily  join  with  us 
in  receiving  him.  But,  we  cannot  know  this  otherwise  than  by  their 
public  profession,  which  profession  can  be  no  other  in  the  act  of  re- 
ceiving the  Lord's  supper,  than  the  profession  of  the  particular  church, 
in  which  it  is  administered. 

Alex.  If  the  communion  of  the  church  is  to  be  interpreted  as  an 
approbation  of  her  sins,  then  by  the  same  rule,  communion  with  an 
individual  is  to  be  interpreted,  as  an  approbation  of  his  sins.  It 
avails  nothing  to  say,  that,  as  the  sacrament  of  the  supper  is  an  act  of 
the  church  in  her  social  character,  we  do,  by  the  very  fact  of  communion 
with  her,  acknowledge  her  as  a  whole ;  and  thus  by  implication  at 
least,  put  the  seal  of  our  approbation  to  whatever  belongs  to  her  as  a 
church.  For  the  difiiculty  is  precisely  where  it  was.  I  must  also  take 
an  individual  as  a  whole.  His  communicating  is  an  act  of  the  whole 
man.  If  I  cannot,  for  the  purpose  of  communion,  separate  the  Divine 
ordinances  in  a  church  from  her  corruptions,  how  can  I  thus  separate 
the  Divine  graces  of  a  Christian  from  his  sins  ?  If  by  communion  with 
her  in  God's  ordinances,  I  must  participate  in  her  conniptions  also,  how 
can  I  commune  with  a  believer  in  his  faith  and  love,  and  not  partici- 
pate in  the  sin  that  dwelleth  in  him  ?  Your  objection  cuts  up  all  com- 
munion of  the  saints  by  the  very  roots. 

RuF.  I  have  already  shewn,  in  what  sense  communicating  with  any 
church  makes  a  person  partaker  in  her  corruptions.  It  is  not  meant, 
that  communicating  with  a  particular  church  implies  an  approbation 
of  all  the  sins  she  is  chargeable  with ;  communion  with  her  does  not 
imply  an  approbation,  as  has  been  already  observed,  of  the  sins  or 
corruptions,  which,  though  they  may  be  found  in  individuals,  and  in 
parties,  among  those  belonging  to  her,  are  not  yet  maintained  in  her 
public  profession ;  and  far  less  does  it  imply  approbation  of  such  sins 
and  corruptions,  as  are  not  justified,  but  acknowledged  and  lamented. 
It  is  only  meant,  that  the  act  of  communicating  with  a  particular 
church  involves  a  person  in  the  same  approbation  of  her  sins  and 
corruptions,  that  is  included  in  her  public  profession,  and  in  the 
declared  ends  for  which  she  subsists  as  a  distinct  professing  body  of 
christians. 

With  regard  to  an  individual  believer,  the  case  is  still  the  same ;  we 
2 


18  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

can  have  no  religious  communion  with  him  but  by  means  of  his  pro- 
fession. Now,  if  his  profession  contains  not  only  a  declaration  of 
his  faith  and  love,  but  also  a  justification  of  in-dwelling  sin; 
we  could  not  lawfully  have  communion  with  him  in  such  a  profes- 
sion. 

But  if  you  say,  that  persons  in  partaking  of  the  Lord's  supper,  or 
of  any  other  puMic  ordinance,  have  no  communion  with  the  other  par- 
takers in  their  profession ;  you  do  indeed  cut  up  the  communion  of 
saints  in  the  visible  church  by  the  very  roots. 

§  1.  Alex.  It  is  not  denied,  that  sacramental  communion  implies 
agreement  in  visible  Christianity  ;  that  is,  in  a  profession  and  practice 
becoming  the  gospel,  without  regard  to  sectarian  differences,  which 
consist  with  the  sufostance  of  evangelical  truth. 

RuF.  What  is  meant  by  visible  Christianity  ?  Is  it  the  profession 
made  by  the  particular  church  with  which  we  communicate  ?  Or  is 
it  the  profession  of  some  other  particular  church  ? 

Alex.  It  does  not  comprehend  all  the  articles  belonging  to  the 
profession  of  any  particular  church.  For  the  whole  profession  of  any 
particular  church  must  have  some  articles  which  distinguish  it  from 
the  profession  of  other  true  churches. 

RuF.  It  seems  then  that  the  profession  of  your  own  church  is  a 
sectarian  profession.  But  passing  this,  I  wish  to  know,  whether  this 
visible  Christianity  includes  all  the  doctrines  and  duties  of  the  christian 
religion. 

Alex.  I  wonder,  that  you  put  such  a  question.  If  it  compre- 
hended them  all ;  then  the  profession  of  these  true  churches,  which 
have  this  visible  Christianity  would  be  perfect,  and  they  would  be  one  ; 
whereas  you  know  their  lamentable  errors  and  divisions.  It  is  also 
granted,  that,  besides  the  essentials,  there  are  other  articles  held  by 
the  churches  as  belonging  to  the  christian  religion,  which  are  justly 
accounted  "  important  and  worthy  to  be  contended  for  with  zeal  and 
constancy. " 

RuF.  You  call  this  scheme  of  religion,  which  is  professed  in  your 
catholic  communion,  visible  Christianity  ;  yet  it  seems  not  very  visible 
to  a  common  discernment.  It  seems,  it  is  neither  the  whole  religion 
of  the  bible,  nor  the  religion  professed  by  any  particular  church. 

Alex.  Visible  Christianity  means  the  essentials  of  the  christian  re- 
ligion. 

RuF.  The  darkness  is  nothing  abated  by  this  representation  of  the 
matter,  unless  it  were  showTi  what  articles  of  the  christian  religion 
are,  and  what  are  not,  to  be  accounted  essential.  For  my  own  part, 
I  have  no  distinct  conception  of  any  other  visible  adherence,  by  any 
person  or  society,  to  the  christian  religion,  than  that  which  is  accord- 
ing to  some  particular  profession  of  it ;  that  is,  a  visible  or  professed 
adherence,  not  only  to  some  parts,  but  to  the  whole  of  that  religion. 

Alex.     Are  there  not  various  passages  of  scripture,  in  which  cer- 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  W 

tain  articles  of  truth  are  represented  as  fundamental  and  necessary  to 
salvation  ?  As,  for  example,  1  Cor.  iii.  11.  ''  Other  foundation  can 
no  man  lay,  than  that  which  is  laid,  which  is  Jesus  Christ."  1  John, 
iv.  2.  "  Every  spirit  that  confesseth,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the 
flesh,  is  of  God. "  John,  xvii.  3.  "  This  is  eternal  life,  to  know  thee 
the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ,  whom  thou  hast  sent."  Rom.  x. 
9.  "  If  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  shalt 
believe  in  thine  heart,  that  God  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead,  thou 
shalt  be  saved."  Heb,  vi.  2,  "  Therefore  leaving  the  principles  of  the 
doctrines  of  Christ,  let  us  go  on  unto  perfection  ;  not  laying  again 
the  foundation  of  repentance  from  dead  works,  and  of  faith  towards 
God,  of  the  doctrine  of  baptisms,  and  of  laying  on  of  hands,  and  of 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  of  eternal  judgment."  1  Tim.  iii. 
16.  "And  without  controversy,  great  is  the  mystery  of  godliness : 
God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh,  justified  in  the  Spirit,  seen  of  angels, 
preached  unto  the  Gentiles,  believed  on  in  the  world." 

RuF.  It  may  be  observed,  that  these  texts  you  have  quoted 
cannot  be  rightly  understood,  without  admitting  other  truths  which  are 
not  expressed,  but  necessarily  supposed  or  impHed  in  them.  Thus  the 
knowledge  of  Jesus  Christ,  whom  God  has  sent,  implies  many  truths 
not  expressed  ;  such  as,  that  he  is  both  God  and  man  in  one  person  ; 
that  he  bears  the  office  of  a  prophet,  of  a  priest,  and  of  a  king.  Now 
an  assent  to  the  words,  (that  is,  an  assent  to  all  that  many  allow  to  be 
fundamental,)  by  those,  who  openly  deny  the  true  and  necessary  im- 
port of  them,  can  be  no  proper  ground  of  sacramental  communion. 
Farther,  if,  by  fundamentals  here,  we  understand  what  is  most  neces- 
saiy  to  salvation  in  every  period  ;  some  of  the  particulars  mentioned 
in  these  texts  seem  not  to  be  so  fundamental  as  others  :  Thus,  bap- 
tisms and  the  laying  on  of  hands,  are  not  so  much  so  as  repentance 
from  dead  works  and  faith  towards  God.  Besides,  it  may  be  observed, 
that,  when  the  tmths  contained  in  the  passages  you  have  recited  are 
said  to  be  connected  with  salvation,  and  to  belong  to  the  foundation 
and  mystery  of  godliness ;  it  is  not  meant,  that  these  predicates  or 
commendations  belong  so  exclusively  to  the  truths  mentioned  in  such 
texts,  as  not  to  belong  to  other  truths  proposed  without  any  such  pre- 
dicates :  such  as,  "  That  the  Father  and  Son  are  one ;  that  when  we 
were  without  strength,  Christ  died  for  the  ungodly  ;  that  Christ  hath 
redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law ;  that  we  are  saved  by  grace 
through  faith. "  But  the  expressions  in  the  texts  you  have  quoted,  de- 
claring the  importance  of  the  truths  contained  in  them,  appear  to 
have  been  occasioned  by  the  opposition  made  to  them,  or  by  tlie  temp- 
tations christians  were  under  to  forget  or  neglect  them.  In  short,  it 
cannot  be  inferred  from  such  commendations  added  to  some  revealed 
truths,  that  the  profession  of  other  revealed  truths,  by  those  with 
whoni  we  ought  to  have  sacramental  communion,  is  not  indispensably 
necessary. 


20  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

Alex.     Some  have  attempted  to  enumerate  the  fundamental  articles 
of  religion. 

RuF.  But  it  appears,  that  neither  the  design  nor  the  success  of  such 
attempts  invites  us  to  imitate  their  example.     The  Racovian  or  So- 
cinian  catechism,  reduces  the  credenda,  or  things  necessary  to  l>e  believed, 
to  six :  namely,  That  there  is  a  God ;  that  he  is  one ;  that  he  is  eter- 
nal ;  that  he  is  perfectly  just ;  that  he  is  perfectly  wise ;  and  that  he  is 
perfectly  powerful.     Many  Arminians  supposed,  that  all  religion  was 
comprehended  in  three  points :  The  belief  of  the  Divine  promise ;  obe- 
dience to  the  Divine  precepts ;  and  the  reverence  due  to  the  scripture. 
It  is  obvious,  that  these  enumerations,  in  which  the  peculiar  doctrines 
of  the  christian  religion  are  not  mentioned,  cannot,  with  any  propriety, 
be  called  an  enumeration  of  the  fundamentals  of  that  religion.     We 
may,  however,  make  an  observation  on  the  Arminian  enumeration, 
which  is  applicable  to  some  other  lists  that  have  been  given  of  fundamen- 
tals.    The  Arminians  say,  that  the  things  necessary  to  be  known  and 
believed,  in  order  to  salvation,  are  very  few;  only  three  things.     But 
each  of  these  things  includes  many  particulars.     The  Divine  precepts, 
for  example,  are  comprehended  in  ten  commandments.     But  that  the 
truths  concerning  sin  and  duty,  which  are  comprised  in  each  of  these 
commandments,  are  exceedingly  numerous,  appears  sufficiently  in  every 
tolerable  explanation  of  them.     And  does  not  a  reverential  regard  to 
the  scriptures  comprehend  a  reverential  regard  to  every  doctrine,  com- 
mand or  promise  contained  in  the  scripture,  whether  fundamental  or  not 
so  ?     Thus  the  essentials,  enumerated  in  this  and  other  lists,  rightly  un- 
derstood, are  found  to  include  non-essentials.     Thus  men's  attempts  to 
draw  the  line  between  essentials,  and  non-essentials ;  to  separate  what 
God  has  revealed  as  one  and  indivisible ;  produce  nothing  but  vanity, 
confusion,  and  contradiction.     Some  have  considered  the  twelve  arti- 
cles of  what  is  called  the  Apostles'  Creed,  as  an  enumeration  of  the 
essentials  of  the  christian  religion :  but  this  creed,  if  it  is  understood 
according  to  Ruffinus,  or  any  other  judicious  expositor  of  it,  compre- 
hends a  great  multitude  of  particular  doctrines.     The  articles  of  this 
creed,  considered  as  an  exhibition  of  the  essentials  of  the  christian  re- 
ligion, are  defective,  while  the  important  doctrines  of  original  sin,  and 
that  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  that  of  the  union  of  believers  to  Christ, 
and  other  fundamental  doctrines  are  not  mentioned.     They  are  also  re- 
dundant, as  it  is  not  evident,  that  the  understanding  of  Christ's  descent 
into  hell,  as  there  stated,  is  essential. 

Alex.  It  has  been  said,  that  no  church  should  require  an  assent  to 
any  proposition  which  is  not  found  in  the  express  words  of  scripture; 
and  that  no  inference  or  deduction  from  the  words  of  scripture  can  be 
a  lawful  term  of  communion. 

RuF.  This  supposition  seems  to  be  at  variance  with  the  opinion,  that 
a  church  should  not  require  as  a  term  of  communion  any  other  profes- 
sion, than  that  of  fundamental  truths ;  the  knowledge  of  which  is  abso- 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  21 

lutely  necessary  to  salvation.  For  if,  according  to  the  opinion  you  have 
stated,  a  church's  warrant  for  requiring  of  those,  whom  she  admits  to 
her  communion,  their  assent  to  any  proposition,  is,  because  it  is  found 
in  the  express  words  of  scripture,  then  the  know^ledge  of  many  truths 
might  be  required  as  terms  of  communion,  which,  no  one  will  say,  are 
fundamental  in  the  sense  now  mentioned :  such  as,  that  Paul  shore  his 
head  at  Cenchrea ;  or  that  he  left  his  cloak  at  Troas ;  because  these 
propositions  are  found  in  the  express  words  of  scripture.  On  the  other 
hand,  according  to  this  supposition,  truths,  that  have  the  best  title  to 
be  ranked  among  the  fundamentals,  might  be  expunged  from  the  list  of 
the  church's  terms  of  communion :  such  as,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a 
person  of  the  Godhead  distinct  from  the  Father  and  the  Son :  and  that 
it  is  the  personal  property  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  proceed  from  the  Son 
as  well  as  from  the  Father.  According  to  this  supposition,  the  church 
of  God,  while  it  had  only  the  five  books  of  Moses,  must  have  tolerated 
the  denial  of  the  ressurection  from  the  dead ;  because,  though,  as  our 
Lord  shews,  this  doctrine  is  really  contained  in  these  books ;  yet  it  is 
not  expressed  in  so  many  words.  Whatever  is  justly  deduced  from 
the  words  of  scripture,  belongs  to  the  true  meaning,  which  God  intended 
to  communicate  by  the  words ;  and  which  we  ought  to  know  and  be- 
lieve. The  church  and  her  members  are  bound,  not  only  to  read,  but 
to  search  the  scriptures ;  and  whatever  doctrines  or  duties  they  have 
fomid  to  be  contained  in  the  import  of  the  words  in  any  part  of  scripture, 
according  to  the  scope  of  the  place  and  the  analogy  of  faith,  they  are 
to  adopt  as  a  part  of  their  public  profession :  what  they  have  thus  at- 
tained, they  are  to  hold  fast  as  a  church ;  nor  ought  they  afterward  to 
join  with  obstinate  opposers  of  such  an  article  in  sacramental  commu- 
nion. It  has  ever  been  the  approved  practice  of  the  church  of  Christ, 
to  use  and  apply  the  scripture,  as  the  rule  of  her  proceedings,  ])y  de- 
ducing consequences  from  the  words  of  it.  Thus,  in  the  beginning  of 
the  New  Testament  dispensation,  it  was  required  as  a  term  of  commu- 
nion with  the  church,  that  persons  should  profess  their  assent  to  this 
truth,  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  This 
verbal  proposition  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Old  Testament,  which  was 
then  the  whole  written  word  of  God.  But  it  was  deduced  as  a  neces- 
sary consequence  from  the  words  of  it.  On  the  same  principle,  the  re- 
nunciation of  Arian  Pelagean  opinions  was  afterwards  required  of  those 
who  sought  the  communion  of  the  church :  and,  in  like  manner,  ab- 
staining from  gambling,  promiscuous  dancing,  attendance  on  stageplays, 
though  these  evils  are  not  expressly  mentioned  in  the  scripture,  was  re- 
quired. 

Alex.  Such  inferences  and  deductions,  however  just  and  necessary, 
are  not  formally  binding  on  the  consciences  of  christians,  farther  than 
they  perceive  the  connection,  and  evidently  see  that  the  propositions 
infen-ed  express  the  doctrine  of  God's  word. 

RuF.  That  it  is  our  duty  to  believe  the  doctrines  necessarily  impli- 


22  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

ed,  as  well  as  those  that  are  literally  expressed  in  the  words  of  scrip- 
ture, appears  from  our  Lord's  reproving  the  Sadducees  for  their  not 
believing  the  resurrection,  as  contained  in  the  words  which  God  spoke 
to  Moses  out  of  the  bush;  and  also  reproving  his  disciples  "as  fools 
and  slow  of  heart  to  believe  all  that  the  prophets  had  spoken ;"  for  their 
not  perceiving,  in  his  sufferings  and  death,  the  fulfilment  of  what  the 
prophets  had  spoken.  It  does  not  follow  from  a  person's  not  actually 
perceiving  a  doctrine,  which  is  necessarily  implied  in  the  words  of  scrip- 
ture, that  his  conscience  is  not  bound  to  know  and  believe  that  doctrine ; 
because  his  not  perceiving  it  must  be  owing  to  the  natural  blindness  of 
his  mind,  to  his  aversion  to  the  light  of  God's  word,  or  to  some  con- 
trary prejudice,  to  which  he  is  obstinately  attached.  "  The  natural  man 
perceiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God ;  they  are  foolishness  to 
him,  neither  can  he  know  them:"  yet  it  is  unquestionably  his  duty  to 
know  and  receive  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  church  may 
judge,  whether  a  person's  public  profession  of  religion  accords  with  the 
scripture,  and  with  the  general  tenor  of  his  practice,  as  far  as  it  comes 
under  their  observation ;  but  how  far  it  accords  with  his  inward  con- 
viction and  perception  of  evidence,  they  cannot  judge.  Hence  it  fol- 
lows, that  the  church  must  be  regulated  by  the  former,  and  not  by  the 
latter,  in  determining  with  whom  her  members  ought  to  join  in  sacramen- 
tal communion. 

Alex.  After  all,  the  distinction  between  the  essentials  and  non-es- 
sentials of  our  most  holy  religion  cannot  be  abolished ;  and  that  it  is 
attended  with  important  consequences,  no  man  of  sober  sense  will  deny.* 

RuF.  It  is  granted,  that  the  distinction,  between  the  first  principles 
of  the  oracles  of  God,  and  other  Divine  truths,  is  necessary  to  be  at- 
tended to  in  teaching  the  doctrines  of  the  christian  religion  in  their  due 
order  and  connection :  and  also  in  forming  a  judgment  of  charity  con- 
cerning particular  churches  and  their  members ;  that  we  may  bless  God 
for  whatever  is  agreeable  to  his  holy  word  in  their  profession  and  prac- 
tice. This  distinction,  as  it  shows  what  eri'ors  and  sins  are  more 
heinous  and  pernicious  than  others,  should  excite  us  to  guard  against 
the  least,  as  leading  to  the  greatest.  But  then  it  is  greatly  abused, 
when  it  leads  us  to  make  little  account  of  some  of  the  doctrines  and 
commands  of  God's  words,  under  the  notion  of  their  not  being  essen- 
tial. The  scheme  of  joining  in  church  communion  with  all  churches 
and  persons  who  hold  the  essentials,  cannot  well  be  denied  to  have  a 
tendency  to  that  abuse.  As  our  cultivating  the  most  particular  and 
habitual  intimacy  and  friendship  with  persons  openly  and  incorrigibly 
addicted  to  any  vice,  must  have  a  native  tendency  to  lessen  or  even 
to  annihilate  our  sense  of  the  evil  of  that  vice ;  so  the  practisers  of 
occasional  communion  with  churches  that  deny  what  they  term  the 
non-essential  articles  of  the  christian  religion,  will,  of  course  become 

*  Plea,  &c.,  page  100. 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  23 

more  and  more  insensible  of  the  sin  and  danger  of  denying  such 
articles. 

Alex.  All  the  members  of  the  human  body  belongs  to  its  perfec- 
tion, and  have  their  peculiar  uses.  Yet  a  toe  does  not  hold  the  same 
place  in  the  system  with  an  arm  or  leg  ;  nor  an  arm  or  leg  the  same 
place  with  the  head  or  heart.  A  person  may  lose  a  limb  and  yet  be 
active,  useful,  honored,  happy.  But  if  a  man  be  run  through  the 
heart,  he  dies.  So  if  a  man,  for  whatever  cause,  renounce  the  obviously 
vital  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  he  cannot  be  a  christian.  These  doc- 
trines, therefore,  must  be  the  basis  of  all  christian  communion.  While 
persons  maintain  these  doctrines  pure  and  entire,  holding  the  head 
Christ  Jesus,  they  may  and  should  have  open  fellowship  with  each 
other,  and  ought  not  to  refuse  each  other  on  account  of  inferior 
differences.* 

RuF.  That  there  are  some  doctrines  of  the  christian  religion,  more 
essential  and  necessary  to  salvation  than  others,  is  not  denied.  It  is 
also  evident,  that  the  denial  of  such  doctrines  is  particularly  pernicious. 
But  it  does  not  follow,  that  we  may  lay  it  down  as  a  rule,  that  sacra- 
mental communion  is  to  be  held  with  all  that  retain  the  essential  doc- 
trines and  duties  of  the  christian  religion.  Because,  before  this  could 
be  admitted  as  a  rule,  it  would  be  necessary  to  determine,  whether  an 
assent  to  all  the  essential  articles  of  our  holy  religion,  or  only  to  some 
of  them  be  required.  In  either  case,  they  can  be  no  rule  to  us,  till 
we  know  precisely  what  they  are. 

Alex.  AVithout  any  nice  and  subtle  discrimination  between  the  es- 
sentials and  non-essentials  of  Christianity,  they  may  be  distinguished 
with  sufficient  accuracy  for  every  practical  pui-pose.  You  are  in 
no  danger  of  mistaking  a  man's  arm  for  his  finger,  his  head  for  his 
foot ;  nor  of  supposing,  that  they  are  equally  important  to  his  life. 
As  one  cannot  imagine  for  one  moment  that  the  question,  whether 
Christ  purchased  temporal  benefits,  or  not,  for  all  mankind  ?  is  like  the 
question.  Whether  he  bought  his  people  unto  God  by  his  blood,  in  ma- 
king a  true,  proper  and  meritorious  sacrifice  for  sin,  when,  through  the 
eternal  Spirit,  he  offered  up  himself?  Nor  that  dispute,  Whether  the 
covenant  of  redemption  be  different  from  the  covenant  of  grace  ?  or, 
what  is  so  called,  be  really  one  and  the  same  covenant,  viewed  under  dif- 
erent  aspects  ?  is  to  be  classed  with  the  dispute.  Whether  Jesus  the 
Lord  our  righteousness  is  a  mere  man  like  ourselves,  or  the  true  God, 
and  therefore  eternal  life.f 

EuF.  If  it  be  once  admitted  as  a  rule,  that  we  should  communicate 
with  all  who  hold  the  essentials  of  Christianity;  then  it  will  not  be 
sufficient  to  point  out  some  of  the  least  important  of  the  non-essentials; 
and  to  say,  that  these  are  easily  distinguished  from  some  of  the  most 
obviously  fundamental  doctrines.     For  if  you  receive  any  into  sacra- 

*  Plea,  &c.,  page  101, 105.  tid.  page  105, 106. 


24  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

mental  communion  on  this  gouud,  that  the  truths  or  duties  they  deny 
are  non-essentials;  then  you  cannot,  without  being  chargeable  with 
partiality,  refuse  that  communion  to  others  on  account  of  the  multitude 
or  importance  of  the  non-essentials  which  they  reject,  or  on  account 
of  the  obstinancy  with  which  they  reject  them.  According  to  your  rule, 
they  have  a  right  to  communicate  with  you,  though  they  renounce  the 
non-essentials,  which  lie  nearest  the  fundamentals ;  and  you  will  be  in 
danger  of  receiving  into  communion  those  who  deny  the  closely  con- 
nected fundamentals ;  unless  you  distinguish  with  the  utmost  precision. 
You  may  smile ;  but,  if  you  allow  me  to  use  your  own  simile,  I  can 
scarcely  help  saying,  that,  in  this  matter,  there  is  a  danger  of  mistaking 
the  head  for  the  foot ;  there  is  a  danger  of  being  induced  by  this  scheme 
to  think,  that  we  may  have  communion  with  such  as  deny  the  Deity 
and  satisfaction  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  well  as  with  those  who  hold  other 
errors.  Such  great  men  as  Grotius,  Episcopius,  Limborch  were  led  to 
think  so,  by  the  notion  they  entertained  of  a  general  communion 
among  christians.  Such  as  plead  for  catholic  communion,  have  gene- 
ally  allowed  that  it  might  be  extended  to  Arminians :  and  no  one  ac- 
quainted with  their  system  and  their  history,  needs  to  be  told  how 
closely  they  are  connected,  and  how  ready  they  are  to  have  church 
communion,  with  the  Socinians. 

The  denial  of  the  necessary  and  eternal  Sonship  of  Christ  as  the 
second  person  in  the  Godhead,  an  opinion,  which  now  prevails  much  even 
among  those  who  profess  to  be  Calvinists,  is  contrary  to  the  scripture 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity ;  as  that  opinion  plainly  implies  that  there  is 
no  necessaiy  personal  distinction  in  the  Godhead  revealed  in  scripture : 
for  the  Sonship  of  Christ  can  be  no  such  distinction,  if  it  depend  upon 
his  Office  as  Mediator.  An  en'or  may  be  far  more  dangerous,  than  it 
appears  to  be  upon  a  slight  and  superficial  view  of  it.  So  the  notion 
of  Christ's  having  purchased  for  all  mankind  the  common  benefits  of 
life,  duly  considered,  may  be  found  to  be  more  inconsistent  with  the 
fundamental  doctrine  of  Christ's  suretyship  for  a  certain  number  of 
mankind,  as  declared  in  scripture,  than  you  have  imagined.  So  the 
more  we  search  the  scripture,  we  may  come  to  see  more  clearly 
that  the  consideration  of  the  covenant  of  grace  and  the  covenant  of  re- 
demption as  two  different  covenants,  is  inconsistent  with  the  unity,  the 
immutability,  and  the  freeness  of  that  everlasting  covenant. 

It  is  not  even  safe  to  say,  that  an  article  of  Divine  truth  is  a  non- 
essential, because  it  has  sometimes  not  been  duly  acknowledged  by  some 
of  the  saints.  Peter,  on  a  certain  occasion,  did  not  duly  acknowledge 
the  necessity  of  Christ's  death  for  the  salvation  of  his  people,  Matth. 
xvi.  21,  22.  The  disciples  doubted  of  Christ's  resurrection,  John,  xx. 
9.  A  true  believer,  says  Mr.  Rutherford,  may  fall  in  temptation,  so 
as  to  deny  this  or  that  fundamental  article.* 

*  Due  Right  of  Presbytery,  p.  876. 


ALEXANDER  AND   RUFUS.  25 

In  short,  the  want  of  precision  in  drawing  a  line,  between  the  essen- 
tials and  the  non-essentials  of  Christianity,  is  an  objection  against 
making  this  distinction  a  rule  of  sacramental  communion,  which  has 
not  yet  been,  and  which,  I  am  persuaded,  never  will  be  satisfactorily 
answered. 

Alex.  It  would  be  improper  to  attempt  answering  it  at  present, 
after  our  conversation  has  been  so  much  protracted.  But,  I  hope,  the 
good  providence  of  God  will  afford  us  farther  opportunities  of  con- 
tinuing our  examination  of  the  question  concerning  catholic  communion. 


DIALOGUE  II. 

The  scheme  of  catholic  communion  now  pleaded  for,  inconsistent  with  the  regard 
due  to  all  the  truths  of  God— This  scheme  unwarrantable  on  account  of  the  uncer- 
tainty of  the  grounds  on  which  it  proceeds — The  evils  tolerated  by  this  catholic 
communion,  not  matters  of  mutual  forbearance  according  to  the  scriptures — 
Confessions  of  faith  justly  considered  as  terms  of  church  communion — The  cath- 
olic communion  pleaded  for,  inconsistent  with  the  due  exercise  of  church  dis- 
cipline. 

Alexander  one  day  met  with  Rufus,  where  a  company  of  militia 
were  going  through  the  military  exercises.  After  the  usual  saluta- 
tions, Alexander  observed,  that  he  took  a  pleasure  in  seeing  our 
young  countrymen  improving  themselves  in  tactics,  which  they  might 
afterward  have  occasion  to  employ  against  an  invading  enemy. 

RuF.  With  how  much  more  solicitude  ought  we  to  arm  ourselves, 
and  prepare  for  the  combat  with  our  spiritual  enemies  ;  according  to 
the  apostle's  exhortation  :  "Take  unto  you  the  whole  armour  of  God, 
that  ye  may  be  able  to  withstand  in  the  evil  day." 

Alex.  You  put  me  in  mind  of  the  subject  of  our  last  conversation. 
You  apprehend  that  the  practice  of  catholic  communion  is  among  the 
evils  of  our  day.  I  wish  to  hear  you  more  fully  on  this  matter.  That 
we  may  continue  our  conversation  without  interruption,  let  us  retire  to 
my  house  which  is  at  hand. 

RuFUS  agreed  to  the  proposal ;  and  after  they  had  gone  into  a  room 
ajid  taken  their  seats,  he  proceeded  in  the  following  maner  : 

§  8.  RuFUS.  In  our  former  conversation,  we  found  it  a  great  objec- 
tion against  making  the  essentials  of  Christianity  the  basis  or  rule  of 
sacramental  communion,  that  they  cannot  be  ascertained  with  precision 
on  account  of  the  intimate  connection  of  the  truths  of  the  christian 
religion  among  themselves.     But,  supposing,  that  the  essentials  of  the 


26  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

christia,n  religion  were  ascertained,  it  would  still  remain  to  be  enquired, 
whether  the  avowed  and  obstinate  denial  of  the  other  doctrines  and 
commands  contained  in  the  word  of  God,  and  avouched  in  the  profes- 
sion of  a  particular  church,  will  not  sufficiently  warrant  a  refusal  of  sa- 
cramental communion  with  such  as  are  chargeable  with  that  denial.  I 
am  persuaded,  that  the  refusal  of  sacramental  communion  by  a  partic- 
ular church,  in  the  supposed  case,  would  be  warrantable,  on  account 
of  the  inestimable  value  of  every  Divine  truth. 

The  authority  of  God  is  the  primary  reason  for  our  receiving  any 
of  the  truths  revealed  in  the  word  of  God.  This  authority  is  stamped 
on  them  all ;  and  is  despised  in  rejecting  the  least,  as  well  as  the  great- 
est. Hence  the  many  charges  given  us  in  scripture  to  prize  the 
truths  of  God,  and  to  contend  for  them.  Prov.  xxiii.  23.  ''Buy  the 
truth,  and  sell  it  not;"  buy  every  truth,  by  which  God  makes  himself 
known ;  hold  it  fast  at  every  hazard.  Jude,  3,  where  the  apostle  re- 
presents it  as  the  design  of  his  epistle  to  excite  christians  "to  contend 
earnestly  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints;"  for  every  article 
of  the  faith,  at  whatever  time  delivered ;  whether  in  the  Old,  or  in  the 
New  Testament ;  whether  in  the  personal  ministry  of  Christ,  or  after- 
wards by  the  apostles. 

Whatever  tends  to  lessen  our  sense  of  the  value  and  importance  of 
God's  authority,  in  any  one  of  his  truths,  is  contrary  to  the  duty  of 
earnestly  contending  for  them.  But  when  a  particular  church  makes 
such  a  difference  among  the  articles  of  Christ's  truth,  which  are  speci, 
fied  in  her  public  profession,  as  this,  that  she  and  her  members,  though 
they  refuse  to  communicate  with  the  opposers  of  some  of  these  articles 
as  more  essential  to  salvation,  yet  agree  to  commucicate  with  the  op- 
posers  of  other  articles  as  not  essential.  Their  practice  manifestly 
tends  to  lessen  the  sense,  they  ought  to  have,  of  the  value  and  impor- 
tance of  Christ's  authority  stamped  upon  all  his  truths.  They  resent 
the  injury  done  to  Divine  truth,  as  contrary  to  their  own  salvation  ; 
but  not,  as  contrary  to  the  authority  and  glory  of  God. 

For  a  particular  church,  or  her  members,  to  have  sacramental  com- 
munion with  the  avowed  enemies  of  any  of  the  truths  or  institutions  of 
Christ,  as  professed  by  her  agreeably  to  his  word,  is  inconsistent  with 
one  of  the  last  charges  Christ  gave  his  ministers  at  his  ascension,  that 
they  should  "teach  all  nations  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  he  had 
commanded  them,"  Matth.  xxviii.  20.  For  what  are  the  things  in 
which  christians  are  to  have  sacramental  communion  ?  The  answer  is 
in  all  the  things  which  the  apostles  and  other  ministers  ought  to  teach 
as  the  things  of  Christ :  and  these  are  not  only  some  things,  or  the 
most  important  things,  but  all  things,  which  he  commands. 

Sacramental  communion  necessarily  includes  a  profession  of  friend- 
ship to  Christ,  and  consequently  of  willingness  to  do  whatsoever  he  hath 
commanded  us,  John,  xv.  14.  "Ye  are  my  friends,  if  ye  do  whatsoever 
I  command  you."     There  can  be  no  communion  in  the  sacramental 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  27 

supper,  but  so  far  as  there  is  a  professed  agreement  among  the  par- 
takers, both  as  to  what  are  the  things  which  Christ  has  commanded, 
and  as  to  their  willingness  to  do  them. 

§  9.  Alex.  Mistakes  concerning  particular  truths  may  consist  with 
real  friendship  to  Christ,  and  with  the  general  power  of  truth  over  the 
heart.  Nay,  it  is  not  uncommon  for  men's  notions  to  be  at  war  with 
their  principles ;  their  speculative  principles  with  their  practical  habits. 
Many  times  a  sound  head  is  joined  to  a  rotten  heart ;  and  a  sound 
heart  to  a  rotten  head.  Some  perish,  because  they  do  not  follow  out 
their  profession ;  and  others  would  perish,  if  they  did.  How  far  er- 
roneous conceptions  may  consist  with  a  state  of  pardon,  it  would  be 
presumptuous  in  us  to  define.  This  is  the  prerogative  of  him  that 
searcheth  the  heart,  and  can  weigh  all  its  influences,  interests  and  dif- 
ficulties. =^ 

RuF.  It  is  God's  prerogative  to  judge  how  far  mistakes  concern- 
ing particular  truths  may  consist  with  the  general  power  of  truth  over 
the  heart ;  how  far  men's  professed  principles  are,  as  they  exist  in  them, 
no  practical  principles  at  all ;  but  merely  uncertain  or  speculative  no- 
tions; whether  the  rotten  head  be  joined  to  a  sound  heart,  or  not;  or 
whether  the  defender  of  a  dangerous  error  be  in  a  state  of  grace ;  or 
not :  and  what  then  ? 

Alex.  Why,  then,  notwithstanding  the  errors  and  unsound  princi- 
ples they  profess,  we  should  hold  sacramental  communion  with  them ; 
because  their  heart  may  be  sound  and  under  the  general  power  of  truth. 

RuF.  You  acknowledge  this  soundness  of  heart,  to  be  something 
which  it  does  not  belong  to  you  to  know.  Thus,  in  the  solemn  duty 
of  communicating,  you  proceed  upon  the  supposition  of  something 
which  you  do  not  and  cannot  know.  Is  not  this  the  height  of  pre- 
pumption  ?  In  short,  should  not  this  consideration,  that  it  is  God's 
prerogative  to  know  the  heart,  lead  us  to  judge  as  to  what  churches 
or  persons  we  may  warrantably  hold  communion  within  the  Lord's  sup- 
per, rather  by  considering  whether  their  profession  and  practice,  which 
we  may  and  should  know,  be  agreeable  to  the  principles  contained  in 
the  word  of  God,  and  publicly  professed  by  us,  than  by  supposing  what 
God  alone  can  know  ? 

Alex.  It  is  granted,  that  no  christian  can  surrender  the  least  tittle 
of  that  truth,  which  he  believes  to  be  the  testimony  of  his  God ;  nor 
do  any  act  which  implies  such  a  surrender.  Every  one,  in  judging  for  him- 
self, must  make  sure  work  by  keeping  on  the  safe  side,  not  wilfully 
rejecting  any  truth,  or  adopting  any  error.  But,  in  judging  of  others, 
he  must  go  every  length  which  the  charity  of  the  gospel  dictates;  i.  e. 
every  length  consistent  with  his  own  attachment  to  and  support  of  the 
truth,  and  which  does  not  rank  among  matters  of  forbearance  a  clear- 
ly vital  doctrine  of  Christianity,  f 

*  Plea,  &c.,  page  103, 104.  fid.  page  104. 


28  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

R,up.  By  a  judgment  of  charity,  you  perhaps  may  mean,  that  favor- 
able side  which  we  ought  to  take,  in  cases  wherein  we  have  not  a 
ground  for  a  certain  determination ;  because  we  do  not  and  cannot 
know  the  whole  of  such  cases.  Thus,  we  may  charitably  allow  a  per 
son's  gracious  state,  even  when  we  see  much  wrong  both  in  his  pro 
fession  and  practice.  And,  with  regard  to  particular  actions,  we  may 
disapprove  them,  and  yet  charitably  think  the  motives,  by  which  a 
person  was  influenced  in  doing  them,  were  good.  But  the  ground  to 
be  proceeded  on  in  sacramental  communion,  is  of  a  different  nature  ; 
it  is  always  something  that  can  be  certainly  known. 

They,  with  whom  the  people  of  God  were  to  have  sacrameutal  com- 
munion under  the  Old  Testament,  were  natural  descendants  of  Jacob, 
and  such  as  professed  subjection  to  all  the  ordinances  which  the  church 
was  bound  to  observe  in  that  period ;  and  whose  known  external 
practice  was  not  contrary  to  that  profession.  And,  under  the  New 
Testament,  they,  with  whom  christians  are  to  hold  sacramental  com- 
munion, are  such  as  openly  confess  Jesus  of  Nazareth  to  be  the  true 
Messiah,  and  to  be  their  Prophet,  Priest  and  King  ;  and  such  as  pro- 
fess subjection  to  all  his  ordinances ;  while  there  is  nothing  known  in 
their  external  practice  contrary  to  such  a  profession.  Such  facts, 
being  capable  of  being  ascertained,  are  proper  grounds  on  which  a 
church  may  proceed  in  judging  with  whom  she  ought  to  hold  sacra- 
mental communion. 

§  10.  With  regard  to  matters  of  forbearance,  it  may  be  observed, 
that  they  are  either  matters  of  indifl'erence  ;  such  as,  between  the  res- 
urrection of  Christ  and  the  destruction  of  the  temple,  the  meats  and 
days  of  which  the  apostles  speaks  in  the  xivth  chapter  of  the  epistle 
to  the  Romans  ;  or  circumstances  of  time  or  place,  such  as,  begin- 
ning public  worship  at  ten  or  at  eleven  o'clock  ;  or  points  which 
have  never  been  stated  as  articles  of  the  church's  public  profession  or 
testimony:  of  which  points  the  apostle  speaks  in  Philip,  iii.  15  "If 
in  any  thing  ye  be  otherwise  minded,  God  shall  reveal  even  this  unto 
you:"  These  words  imply,  that  forbearance  is  to  be  used  in  points, 
wherein  some  may  be  otherwise  minded  than  they  ought  to  be ;  while 
they  are  things,  which  the  Lord  has  not  yet  brought  a  particular 
church  to  know  and  acknowledge ;  but  which,  she  is  to  believe,  that 
he  will  reveal  to  her.  But  no  such  forbearance  is  to  be  used  with  re- 
gard to  articles  of  the  public  profession  which  she,  as  a  church,  has 
attained,  according  to  what  the  apostle  adds  in  verse  16th:  "But 
whereto  we  have  already  attained,  let  us  walk  by  the  same  rule,  let 
us  mind  the  same  thing."  Hence,  even  those  articles  of  a  church's 
public  profession,  which  are  deemed  non-essentials  or  less  important, 
being  truths  and  duties  of  God's  word  which  the  church  has  been 
brought  to  know  and  profess,  belong  to  the  rule  of  her  sacramental 
communion,  and  she  is  bound  to  exclude  from  it  the  open  and  obsti- 
nate opposers  of  such  articles. 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.         •  29 

Here  I  cannot  help  taking  notice  of  your  comparison  of  the  non-es- 
sential articles  of  our  holy  religion  to  the  legs  and  arms  of  the  human 
body.  You  observed,  that  a  person  may  lose  a  limb,  and  yet  be  use- 
ful, honored,  happy.  So  you  suppose,  a  person  may  obstinately 
deny  various  truths  of  Christ  as  professed  by  us,  and  yet  have  sacra- 
mental communion  with  us.  The  cases,  however,  are  not  quite  par- 
allel :  there  is  no  such  inconsistency  in  the  former  case,  as  in  the  lat- 
ter. A  man's  want  of  a  limb  may  be  scarcely  any  hindrance  to  some 
ways  in  which  he  may  be  useful,  honored,  and  happy.  But  there  is 
no  open  and  obstinate  denial  by  communicants  of  any  of  the  truths 
of  Christ  as  professed  by  us,  which  is  not  contrary  to  the  nature  of 
that  communion,  which  we  ought  to  have  in  partaking  of  the  Lord's 
supper :  as  it  requires  an  entire  agreement  in  the  public  profession  of 
the  truths  of  Christ :  as  it  requires  our  giving  glory  to  God  with  one 
mind  and  one  mouth.  But,  supposing  the  case  of  such  as  deny  cer- 
tain truths  or  institutions  of  Christ  to  be  similar  to  that  of  persons 
deprived  of  legs  or  arms,  still  our  having  sacramental  communion 
with  them  would  be  unwarrantable :  as  it  would  expose  us  to  danger 
of  being  reduced  to  the  same  condition :  that  is,  we  would  be  thereby 
in  danger  of  being  seduced  by  such  communion  from  the  profession 
of  these  truths  or  institutions  of  Christ ;  for,  says  the  apostle,  evil 
communications  corrupt  good  manners :  a  little  leaven  the  whole 
lump. 

You  grant  that  a  christian  cannot  surrender  the  least  tittle  of  that 
truth,  which  he  believes  to  be  the  testimony  of  his  God ;  nor  do  any 
act  which  implies  such  a  surrender.  This  concession  cannot  be  re- 
conciled to  your  communicating  with  a  church  whose  profession  open- 
ly denies  the  truth,  which  you  believe  to  be  the  testimony  of  your 
God.  For  the  public  profession,  which  you  make  in  that  act  of 
communicating,  can  be  no  other,  as  we  have  seen,  than  the  profession 
of  the  church  with  which  you  communicate :  and,  therefore,  whatever 
less  or  greater  measure  of  God's  truth,  that  profession  surrenders, 
you,  in  that  act,  surrender  too.  You  may  say,  that  you  will  retain 
it  in  your  heart,  and  mean  to  resume  the  open  profession  of  it,  as  soon 
as  the  sacramental  occasion  is  over :  so  might  those  unfaithful  profes- 
sors in  the  first  ages  of  the  christian  church,  whom  their  heathen  per- 
secutors prevailed  on  to  throw  a  handful  of  incense  on  the  heathen 
altar,  have  said. 

You  say,  that  a  christian  cannot  surrender  the  least  tittle  of  truth 
which  he  believes  to  be  the  testimony  of  his  God:  or  do  any  act  which 
implies  such  a  surrender.  And  is  it  not  as  unlawful  for  a  particular 
church,  in  her  ecclesiastical  capacity,  to  surrender  any  part  of  that 
which  she  hath  received,  and  which  she  profeses  as  a  truth  of  God's 
word  ?  surely,  it  is  no  less  unlawful.  But  a  church  may  be  justly 
said  to  surrender  any  such  part  of  her  profession,  when  she  does  not 
hold  it  fast.     And,  it  is  evident,  that  she  does  not  hold  it  fast,  when 


30  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

she  admits  the  avowed  opposers  of  it  to  her  sacramental  communions 
for,  in  doing  so,  she  in  effect  tells  them  and  the  world  that  she  does 
not  account  their  opposition  to  that  article  any  moral  evil,  nor  the 
holding  of  it  any  duty.  She  does  not  require  her  members  to  hold  it : 
and,  therefore,  she  must  be  considered  as  dropping  or  surrendering  it. 
For  an  article,  which  a  church  does  not  require  her  members  to  hold, 
may,  indeed,  be  the  private  persuasion  of  individuals,  but  is  no  longer 
any  part  of  her  public  profession. 

§  11.  Alex.  It  is  necessary  to  take  notice  of  a  mistake, which  is 
growing  more  and  more  prevalent,  concerning  the  intention  and  use  of 
confessions  of  faith:  I  mean,  in  their  present  use  and  ampUtude. 
When  you  speak  of  a  church  not  surrendering  any  article  of  her  pro- 
fession, you  mean  that  every  article  of  the  confession  of  faith  which  a 
particular  church  has  adopted  should  be  a  term  of  communion  :  and 
that  none  should  be  admitted  into  her  fellowship  who  disapproves  of 
any  article  of  it.*     Is  not  this  your  opinion  ? 

RuF.  Yes  :  otherwise,  I  should  think,  it  could  not  with  propriety  be 
called  the  profession  of  that  church :  because,  if  such  as  openly  dis- 
approve the  various  articles  of  it,  be  admitted  into  her  communion,  she 
may  soon  have  few  or  no  members  that  approve  it :  and,  surely,  it 
cannot  be  justly  considered  as  the  confession  of  any  church,  which  is 
not  approved  by  the  members  of  it. 

Alex.  A  confession  of  faith,  indeed,  as  the  fixed  testimony  of  the 
church,  by  which  her  principles  are  to  be  tried,  or  as  the  judicial  ex- 
pression of  the  sense  in  which  she  understands  the  holy  scriptures  in 
relation  to  the  doctrine,  government,  and  worship  of  the  christian 
church,  when  these  things  are  matters  of  controversy,  is  so  necessary, 
that  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  it  can  be  dispensed  with.  She  must 
proclaim  what  she  believes,  and  means  to  teach.  But  when  such  a 
confession  is  expanded  into  a  comprehensive  system  of  Theology,  as 
in  the  Westminster  Confession,  ought  it  to  be  proposed  for  approlDation 
in  all  its  latitude  to  every  one  who  desires  baptism  for  his  children,  or 
a  seat  at  the  Lord's  table  ?  No,  it  is  sufficient  to  require  of  such  an 
applicant  his  approbation  of  the  cardinal  points.  It  is  not  necessary, 
that  he  should  be  required  to  approve  the  other  points  contained  in 
the  public  profession,  which  may  be  allowed  to  be  important  and 
worthy  to  be  maintained  with  zeal  and  constancy  ;  though  not  essen- 
tial to  christian  faith  and  fellowship. f 

RuF.  I  have  already  said,  that  a  church,  having  adopted  a  confes- 
sion of  faith,  has,  in  doing  so,  stated  a  number  of  truths  revealed,  and 
duties  enjoined  in  the  word  of  God,  acknowledging  her  obligation  to 
maintain  them.  This  acknowledgement  respects  all  the  points  or 
articles  of  her  confession  alike :  so  that  the  admission  of  an  avowed 
opposer  of  any  one  of  these  articles,  to  her  sacramental  communion, 

*  Plea,  &c.,  page  35L  t  Id.  page  351,  352,  353,  354. 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  31 

is  not  only  contrary  to  the  primary  obligation  she  is  under  to  hold  such 
truths  and  duties  as  contained  in  the  word  of  Grod  ;  but  also,  contrary 
to  the  secondary  obligation  she  is  under  to  hold  them  from  her  own 
acknowledgement  and  confession  of  them. 

It  cannot  be  denied,  that  a  church's  adoption  of  a  confession  of  faith, 
necessarily  implies  such  an  obligation ;  for  she  cannot  adopt  any  point 
as  a  truth  revealed  in  the  word  of  God,  or  as  a  duty  enjoined  therein, 
without  acknowledging  herself  and  all  her  members  to  be  bound  to 
continue  in  the  faith  and  profession  of  the  one,  and  in  the  practice  of 
the  other.  Nor  is  it  less  evident,  that  her  admitting  to  sacramental 
communion  an  avowed  opposer  of  any  of  these  revealed  truths,  or 
commanded  duties,  specified  in  her  confessions,  is  quite  contrary  to 
that  obligation :  for  a  church  cannot  be  said  to  hold  what  she  allows 
her  members  openly  to  oppose.  If  she  grant  her  sacramental  com- 
munion to  one  opposer  of  a  truth  or  duty  of  God's  word ;  she  cannot 
refuse  it  to  ten,  twenty,  or  a  hundred  of  the  same  description.  We 
may  reason  in  the  same  way  concerning  all  those  non-essential  points, 
which  you  own  to  be  important  and  worthy  to  be  maintained  with  zeal 
and  constancy  :  for  if  the  church  admits  to  her  sacramental  commun- 
ion, the  avowed  opposer  of  one  of  these  points,  she  cannot  consistently 
refuse  the  same  privilege  to  the  pious  opposer  of  another  of  them, 
nor  to  the  like  opposer  of  a  third,  or  of  a  fourth,  and  so  on,  till  she 
comes  to  the  points  which  you  allow  to  be  essential  to  the  christian 
faith  and  fellowship  ;  and  then  how  hard  it  will  be  to  retain  even  these 
essential  articles,  must  be  evident^  from  the  acknowledged  difficulty 
of  drawing  the  line  between  them  and  other  important  points ;  from 
the  close  connection  of  one  Divine  truth  with  another,  as  links  of  the 
same  chain ;  from  the  vanity  of  pretending  to  hold  the  foundation  with- 
out a  superstructure  ;  and  from  the  danger  of  accounting  it  so  trivial 
an  offence,  to  trample  openly  and  obstinately  upon  the  authority  of  the 
Supreme  Lawgiver,  as  not  to  deserve  the  least  censure  of  the  church. 

You  justly  allow,  when  the  doctrine,  the  worship,  or  the  govern- 
ment of  the  christian  church  is  matter  of  controversy,  a  particular 
church  ought  to  have  a  confession,  expressing  the  sense  in  which  she 
understands  the  scripture,  in  relation  to  the  controverted  subject. 
But,  if  a  church  admits  to  her  sacramental  communion  every  opposer 
of  these  articles  of  her  confession,  which  are  not  what  you  call  essen- 
tial, though  acknowledged  to  be  important  and  worthy  to  be  maintain- 
ed with  zeal  -and  constancy  ;  her  confession  may  soon  cease  to  be  any 
exhibition  of  her  sense  of  the  controverted  articles :  for  that  confes- 
sion cannot  be  said  to  be  her's,  of  which  a  great  part,  (perhaps  the  far 
greater  part)  is  openly  and  obstinately  rejected  by  the  partakers  of  her 
sacramental  communion.  Nay,  the  admission  of  one  avowed  opposer 
of  one  article  of  such  a  profession,  justified  and  defended  by  her  as  a 
church,  must  go  a  great  way  to  destroy  the  use  of  that  confession,  as 
a  criterion  or  standard  for  determining  her  principles. 


32  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

Alex.  If  confessions  of  faith  were  terms  of  sacramental  communion  ; 
then  they  would  be  the  shibboleths,  the  symbols,  the  flags  of  religious, 
or  rather  irreligous  factions ;  challenges  to  battle  among  believers ; 
wedges  of  dissension  to  split  the  church  of  Christ  into  pieces  :  where- 
as, indeed,  they  ought  only  to  proclaim,  wherein  believers  differ  from 
the  carnal  world ;  and  to  be  luminous  rallying  points  of  their  strength 
and  efforts  in  their  conflict  with  the  enemies  of  our  Lord  and  of  his 
Christ.* 

RuF.  When  I  spoke  of  confessions  of  faith  being  terms  of  church 
communion,  I  proceeded  upon  the  supposition,  that  a  confession  was 
not  an  exhibition  of  opinons,  ceremonies,  and  forms  of  church  gov- 
ernment, not  to  be  found  in  the  holy  scriptures.  I  spoke  of  a  con- 
fession which  exhibits  the  truths  and  institutions  of  Jesus  Christ, 
which  he  enjoins  his  whole  church  to  receive  and  maintain :  such  a 
confession  never  was,  and  never  can  be,  either  the  cause,  or  the  badge 
of  faction.  When  a  church  requires  all  the  partakers  of  her  sacra- 
mental communion  to  declare  their  adherence  to  her  whole  confession, 
it  being  such  as  is  now  described  ;  then,  and  not  otherwise,  it  pro- 
claims wherein  believers  difl'er  from  the  carnal  world ;  for  it  is  the 
character  of  believers,  that  they  adhere  to  all  the  truths  and  institu- 
tions of  Christ  without  any  exception.  It  is  true,  the  church's  con- 
fession of  faith  may  condemn  errors  and  corruptions  in  which  even  true 
believers  may  be  ensnared ;  but  as  these  errors  and  corruptions  belong 
to  their  remaining  sinful  conformity  to  the  world,  so  that  confession,  in 
opposing  them,  opposes  not  believers  themselves  as  such,  but  what  be- 
longs to  the  carnal  world.  On  the  other  hand,  if  a  particular  church 
tells  the  world,  that  she  holds  the  essential  parts  of  her  confession  as 
terms  of  sacramental  communion,  she  allows  her  members  to  make 
little  or  no  account  of  all  the  other  parts  of  it.  She  can  give  no 
check  to  the  open  opposers  of  these  other  parts.  She  opens  a  door 
to  endless  perverse  disputings  against  them ;  and  also  about  the  un- 
answerable question  as  to  what  is  precisely  the  line  of  distinction 
between  the  essentials  and  non-essentials.  Thus,  a  particular  church 
will  be  filled  with  schisms  in  the  sense  in  which  the  apostle  Paul  uses 
that  word,  that  is,  for  factions  and  parties  in  the  same  church  com- 
munion ;  in  which  sense,  he  says,  there  were  schisms  and  divisions  in 
the  Corinthian  church.  Thus,  if  a  particular  church  has  a  confession 
of  faith,  and  yet  tells  her  members,  that  a  part  of  it,  (perhaps  the 
far  greater  part,)  is  no  term  of  communion  ;  the  various  articles  of 
that  part  must  be,  (to  use  your  own  language)  the  shibboleths  of  re- 
ligious, or  rather  irreligious,  factions ;  the  wedges  of  dissensions  to 
split  such  a  church  of  Christ  into  pieces. 

Alex.  No,  no ;  these  parts  of  her  confession,  in  which  she  allows 
her  communicants  to  differ,  furnishes  suitable  occasions  for  the  ex- 

*Plea,  &c.,  page  348. 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  33 

exercise  of  that  forbearance,  which  is  indispensable  to  keeping  the 
unity  of  the  spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace.* 

RuF.  It  is  a  great  sin  to  deny  openly  any  truth  of  God,  and  par- 
ticularly such  truths  as  you  allow  to  be  important  and  worthy  to  be 
contended  for  with  zeal  and  constancy :  and  therefore  love,  sincere 
love  to  our  brother,  who  is  fallen  into  this  sin,  requires  us,  both  in 
our  private  and  official  capacity,  to  admonish  and  reprove  him. 
Hence,  it  is  evident,  that  a  church's  forbearing  to  reprove  or  censure, 
in  such  a  case,  those  who  apply  for  admission  to  her  sacramental 
communion,  is  not  the  forbearance  which  the  scripture  inculcates,  a 
forbearance  in  love.  Nor  can  it  be  agreeable  to  the  unity  of  the 
spirit  for  a  particular  church  to  admit  to  her  sacramental  communion, 
any  open  and  obstinate  opposers  of  what  is  justly  stated  in  her  con- 
fession as  a  truth  of  the  Lord  Jesus  ;  for  the  unity  of  the  spirit 
which  is  the  bond  of  the  church's  peace,  has  the  Holy  Spirit 
for  its  author  as  a  spirit  of  truth  ;  and,  therefore,  a  church's  conniving 
at  terror,  or  her  neglecting  to  censure  the  erroneous,  is  not  to  be 
ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit  ;  led  by  him,  the  officers  and  members  of 
a  particular  church  will  be  valiant  for  the  truth  on  the  earth  ;  "  their 
hearts  will  be  comforted,  being  knit  together  in  love,  and  unto  all 
riches  of  the  full  assurance  of  understanding."  Coloss.  ii.  2.  How 
can  this  be  the  case,  while  they  hold  communion  with  the  open  and  ob- 
stinate opposers  of  any  of  the  truths  of  Christ,  especially  of  those  which 
being  stated  in  their  confession  of  faith,  or  their  public  testimony,  they 
have  bound  themselves  to  maintain  ?  Is  not  a  church's  retaining  such 
opposers  in  her  communion  quite  contrary  to  the  mutual  love  which  ought 
to  animate  her  members  in  the  joint  profession  of  the  same  Divine 
truths?  Can  we  sincerely  embrace,  in  the  fellowship  of  the  gospel,  those 
who  profess  their  firm  resolution  to  cut  off,  if  they  are  able,  our  legs 
or  arms  ?  And  are  we  to  find  no  fault  with  this  resolution ;  because, 
legs  and  arms  not  being  essential,  we  may  be  useful,  honored,  and 
happy  without  them  ?  Surely,  if  professors  had  as  much  regard  for 
the  truths  of  Christ,  as  they  have  for  these  members,  they  would  not 
be  so  apt  to  relish  the  proposal  of  sacramental  communion  with  such 
as  openly  avow  their  opposition  to  any  of  these  truths. 

Alex.  Supposing,  that  a  particular  church  has  adopted  such  a 
confession  of  faith  as  the  Westminster  Confession ;  it  cannot  be  in 
efi'ect  a  term  of  christian  communion.  Will  a  discreet  man  allow,  that 
every  plain  christian,  who  knows  enough  for  his  salvation,  and  has 
learned  to  glorify  God  in  his  body  and  his  spirit,  can  also  be  acquainted 
with  the  whole  doctrine  of  such  a  standard  ?  The  most  strenuous  ad- 
vocates for  your  opinion,  in  their  examination  of  applicants  for  sacra- 
mental communion,  never  go  into  the  details  of  these  standards,  f 

RuF.  When  a  confession  of  faith  is  held  by  a  particular  church,  as 

*  Plea,  &c.,  page  349.  t  Id.  page  356. 

3 


34  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

a  term  of  her  sacramental  communion,  it  is  not  meant,  that  all  whom 
she  admits  to  that  communion,  are  expected  to  have  the  same  measure 
of  acquaintance  with  that  confession,  and  with  the  grounds  of  all  its 
articles.  There  are  always  various  degrees  of  knowledge  among  church 
members  :  in  this,  as  in  other  respects,  some  will  be  farther  advanced 
than  others.  This  may  easily  be  inferred  from  the  variety  of  their 
capacities  and  opportunities  of  learning.  But  the  confession  of  a  par- 
ticular church  ought  to  be  uniformly  a  term  of  communion  in  this 
sense,  that  none  ought  to  be  admitted  to  sealing  ordinances  who  avow 
an  obstinate  attachment  to  tenets  or  practices  inconsistent  with  that 
confession.  Thus,  the  church  may  go  on  toward  more  perfection  iu 
her  communion ;  or  at  least,  she  may  retain  the  measure  of  it  which 
she  has  attained.  Thus,  she  may  avoid  the  evil  for  which  the  churches 
of  Pergamos  and  Thyatira  were  so  severely  threatened :  the  one  for 
having  in  her  communion  those  who  held  the  doctrine  of  Balaam,  and 
that  of  the  Nicolaitans ;  and  the  other,  for  having  those  in  it  who 
taught  their  followers  to  commit  fornication,  and  to  eat  things  sacri- 
ficed to  idols*.  Thus,  too,  the  weak  are  encouraged  to  seek  a  more 
perfect  knowledge  of  the  truths  exhibited  in  the  public  confession,  as 
truths  contained  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  ;  that  their  communion  with 
the  church  may  be  more  perfect ;  they  being  more  able  to  glorify  God 
with  the  same  mind  and  mouth,  according  to  that  confession. 

Let  us  only  consider  what  a  happy  change  it  Avould  make  in  the  case 
of  the  catholic  visible  church,  if  all,  who  were  admitted  to  sacramental 
communion,  would  agree  in  an  unanimous  adherence  to  such  a  form  of 
sound  words  as  the  Westminster  confession  of  faith  and  catechisms ; 
renouncing,  at  the  same  time,  the  errors  and  corruptions  of  some,  who 
have  professed  adherence  to  that  confession  ;  and  whose  perversions 
of  it,  if  admitted,  would  destroy  the  use  of  it,  as  any  test  of  soundness 
in  the  faith. 

The  expectation,  that  the  catholic  church  may  yet  come  to  hold  as 
terms  of  communion,  not  only  some,  but  all  the  articles  of  such  an 
orthodox  confession  of  the  truth  in  opposition  to  all  the  various  schemes 
of  error,  which  have  prevailed  in  various  times  and  places,  is  not  so 
chimerical  as  many  suppose.  There  appears  to  be  reason  to  believe, 
that  it  will  at  length  be  the  case,  from  the  promises  that  God  hath  given 
his  church  of  the  increase  of  light  and  knowledge ;  as  when  he  fore- 
tells, that  the  light  of  the  moon  shall  be  as  the  light  of  the  sun,  and 
the  light  of  the  sun  sevenfold  as  the  light  of  seven  days  :  from  his  pro- 
mises of  the  unity  of  the  church,  as  when  he  declares,  that  he  will  give 
them  one  heart  and  one  way ;  that  the  Lord  shall  be  one,  and  his 
name  one,  through  all  the  earth  ]  that  he  will  turn  to  the  people  a 
pure  language,  and  that  they  shall  all  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord, 
and  serve  him  with  one  consent ;  that  when  the  Lord  shall  bring  again 
Zion,  the  watchman  on  her  walls  shall  see  eye  to  eye,  and  with  the 
voice  together  shall  they  sing : — from  his  having  engaged  thoroughly 


ALEXANDER  AND   RUFUS.  35 

to  plead  the  cause  of  Zion,  which  is  the  cause  of  truth,  his  own  cause  : 
from  the  duty,  incumbent  on  the  church  and  her  members,  of  holding 
fast  every  Divine  truth,  and  of  rejecting  every  contrary  error  : — from 
the  close  connecton  of  all  the  doctrines  contained  in  the  holy  scrip- 
tures, as  links  of  the  same  chain,  as  having  the  same  Divine  authority 
stamped  on  them  all,  and  as  having  the  same  chief  end,  the  glory  of 
God,  and  the  same  next  subordinate  end,  the  spiritual  good  of  his 
people  : — from  the  ability  and  disposition  of  the  new  nature  in  believers 
to  know  and  acknowledge  the  true  doctrines  of  the  divine  word,  and 
to  reject  the  contrary  errors ;  for  Christ's  sheep  know  or  distinguish 
his  voice  ;  a  stranger  will  they  not  follow,  for  they  know  not  the  voice 
of  strangers  : — from  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  be  yet  more  em- 
inently poured  out  as  a  Spirit  of  truth  : — and  from  the  great  measure 
of  agreement  in  a  testimony  for  Divine  truth,  which  has  sometimes 
been  actually  attained  in  the  church  at  large,  or  in  some  parts  of  it. 

Alex.  Though  I  cannot  grant  that  an  approbation  of  all  the  con- 
fession of  a  particular  church,  such  as  the  Westminster  confession, 
ought  to  be  required  of  private  persons  in  order  to  their  admission  to 
baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper;  yet,  I  allow  that  she  ought  to  put 
this,  her  confession  of  faith,  into  the  hands  of  her  officers,  to  be  by 
them  inculcated  and  supported.  Nothing  can  be  more  absurd  than  to 
employ,  as  preachers,  and  guardians  of  her  religion,  men,  who  for  aught 
she  knows,  may  labor  to  subvert  the  whole  system,  she  is  endeavor- 
ing to  build  up.  She  has,  therefore,  a  right,  and  it  is  her  duty,  on  the 
ground  of  self-preservation,  as  well  as  of  fidelity  to  her  King,  to  ex- 
act from  them,  an  explicit  avowal  of  their  belief  on  all  these  topics, 
which  more  nearly  or  remotely  affect  the  main  interests  of  truth ;  and 
a  positive  unequivocating  agreement  to  maintain  them.  For  this  pur- 
pose, she  must  bring  them  to  a  test;  which  can  be  done  so  effectually 
in  no  form,  as  that  of  requiring  an  approbation  of  her  confession.  In 
a  church's  confession  of  faith,  then,  are  strictly  and  indispensably  her 
terms  of  official  union.* 

Rup.  You  then  allow,  that  the  orthodoxy  of  those,  who  are  can- 
didates for  the  ministry,  ought  to  be  ascertained,  not  by  a  bare  acknow- 
ledgment of  the  scriptures,  which  the  grossest  heretic  is  ready  to 
make;  nor  by  delivering  a  confession  of  his  own  composing,  and  in 
the  express  words  of  scripture,  which  persons  of  erroneous  priciples 
may  easily  frame  in  such  a  manner  as  to  impose  upon  the  simple ;  but 
by  declaring  his  approbation  of  a  confession  of  faith,  framed  by  the 
church,  in  a  plain  and  direct  opposition  to  the  errors  of  the  times. 
You  grant,  that  we  ought  to  be  well  satisfied  as  to  the  orthodoxy  of 
these  candidates,  to  whom  we  intrust  the  care  of  immortal  souls.  Yet, 
I  cannot  help  observing,  that  the  manner  in  which  you  express  your- 
self, implies  an  opinion,  that  it  is  not  properly  the  confession  itself  as 

*  Plea,  &c.,  page  352,  353. 


36  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

a  tessera  or  form  of  sound  words,  or  as  one  whole ;  but  rather  some- 
thing in  it,  which  a  candidate  should  be  required  to  approve  :  for  you 
speak  of  exacting  from  him,  not  a  simple  approbation  of  the  church's 
confession  as  one  whole,  but  "an  avowal  of  his  belief  on  all  these 
topics  which  more  nearly  or  remotely  affect  the  main  interests  of 
truth ;"  as  if  there  were  some  parts  of  the  confession  which  he  need 
not  be  required  to  approve  ;  as  not  much,  if  at  all,  affecting  these  in- 
terests :  and  you  do  not  say,  that  a  church's  terms  of  official  union 
are  her  confession,  but  that  they  are  in  it  j  as  if  they  were  only  some 
part  of  it :  so  that  one  is  still  at  a  loss  to  know,  how  far  you  allow  a 
church's  confession  to  be  a  term  even  of  oflBcial  communion. 

Alex.  The  confession  of  a  particular  church  is  a  human  thing ; 
as  such,  the  church  cannot  require  a  candidate  to  approve  it  indefi- 
nitely or  without  exception. 

RuF.  When  a  person  approves  of  the  confession  of  a  particular 
church,  he  approves  of  it,  as  a  subordinate  standard,  stating  scripture 
truths  and  institutions,  in  direct  and  express  opposition  to  prevailing 
errors  and  corruptions.  It  is  true,  there  is  an  exception  implied  in 
the  consideration  of  it  as  a  standard  subordinate  to  the  holy  scriptures, 
which  constitute  the  supreme  standard.  So  that  a  person's  adherence 
to  such  a  confession,  cannot  bind  him  to  any  thing  which  he  may  ever 
find  in  that  confession  inconsistent  with  the  scripture  standard.  But, 
if  a  candidate  for  the  ministry  is  convinced,  that  this  is  the  case  with 
any  article  of  the  confession,  which  he  is  required  to  approve,  or  to 
maintain,  he  cannot  honestly  comply.  When  a  person  receives  the 
confession  of  a  particular  church,  he  declares,  (as  the  members  of  the 
church  of  Scotland  did,  when  they  entered  into  the  national  covenant 
concerning  their  confession,)  that  he  believes  it  to  be  "  God's  undoubt- 
ed truth  and  verity,  grounded  only  upon  his  written  word."  It  is 
evident,  that  an  adherence  to  certain  things  in  a  confession,  that  are 
connected  with  the  main  interests  of  truth,  is  not  an  honest  adherence 
to  the  confession  itself.  And,  if  an  approbation  of  these  things,  while 
they  are  not  specified,  be  all  that  a  candidate  means  by  his  approbation 
of  a  confession,  it  is  not  too  much  to  say,  that  he  deals  deceitfully 
with  God  and  man. 

It  is  vain  to  say,  that  the  confession  of  a  particular  church  is  a 
human  thing  :  for,  candidly  interpreted,  it  may  be  found  to  contain 
nothing  but  the  undoubted  truth  of  God's  word.  It  is  either  pos- 
sible for  men  to  express  these  truths  in  their  own  words,  or  it  is  not. 
If  it  is  not  possible,  then  his  words  cannot  be  understood  :  and  all 
attempts  to  state,  explain,  illustrate  or  apply  them,  as  in  public 
preaching  or  in  writing,  are  vain ;  a  supposition  grossly  absurd.  But 
if  it  be  possible  for  men  to  express  the  truths  of  the  scripture  in  their 
own  words,  then  the  doctrines  or  instructions  contained  in  a  confession, 
may  be  no  other  than  the  truths  of  God's  word ;  and,  if  they  are  ac- 
tually no  other,  then  a  church  may  warrantably  require  of  her  mem- 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  31 

bers,  and  of  such  as  desire  admission  to  her  communion,  a  public  as- 
sent to  her  whole  confession,  nor  can  that  assent  be  refused  without 
impiety.  No  church  has  a  right  to  require  her  members  to  receive 
any  of  the  doctrines  or  commandments  of  men ;  but  her  Divine  Head 
authorizes  her  to  exact  of  her  members  an  adherence  to  all  his  truths 
and  institutions.  In  this  case,  he  is  saying,  "He  that  receiveth  you, 
receiveth  me;  and  he  that  despiseth  you,  despiseth  me." 

Alex.  You  think,  that  the  members  in  general,  of  any  particular 
church,  should  be  required  to  acknowledge  her  whole  confession  of 
faith.  But  a  church  seems  to  do  enough  for  securing  soundness  of 
doctrine  in  her  communion,  when  she  requires  this  acknowledgment 
from  ministers,  without  asking  it  from  her  other  members. 

RuF.  A  person,  who  openly  and  obstinately  refuses  to  assent  to 
any  article  of  a  church's  confession,  containing  nothing  but  what  is  to 
be  found  in  the  word  of  God,  is  chargeable  with  obstinacy  in  error, 
and  opposition  to  one  or  more  of  the  truths  of  God  :  and  though  this 
obstinacy  is  more  aggravated  in  ministers  ;  yet  there  is  no  good  reason 
to  warrant  a  church's  conniving  at,  or  letting  it  pass  without  censure, 
in  other  church  members.  Many  of  the  reasons  that  require  ministers 
to  acknowledge  the  church's  confession,  render  it  necessary  for  other 
church  members  to  do  so.  Ought  ministers  to  agree  to  the  same  con- 
fession of  faith,  that  the  church  may  with  one  mind  and  one  mouth 
glorify  God  ?  Such  agreement  is  no  less  requisite  for  the  same  end  in 
other  members,  who  constitute  the  body  of  the  church.  It  is  as  ne- 
cessary for  the  people  in  general,  as  for  the  ministers,  that  they  be 
agreed,  in  order  to  their  walking  comfortably  in  the  fellowship  of  the 
gospel.  Again,  are  ministers  required  to  agree  to  the  church's  con- 
fession, because  they  are  public  teachers  ?  and  should  not  the  other 
members  give  the  like  evidence  of  their  soundness  in  the  faith  ;  since 
they  also  are  called  to  teach  their  families  and  others  privately  ?  In 
this  respect,  all  the  Lord's  people  are  prophets.  It  seems  scarcely 
more  necessary,  that  the  public  teaching  of  ministers  should  be  agree- 
able to  the  church's  confession,  than  that  the  private  teaching  of  other 
members  should  be  so.  Is  the  approbation  of  a  church's  confession 
necessary  to  guard  against  the  danger  of  an  erroneous  ministry  ?  and 
is  not  the  danger  of  receiving  into,  or  retaining  in  the  communion  of 
any  particular  church,  multitudes  of  private  persons,  who  may  be  at- 
tached to  error,  and  zealous  to  propagate  it,  equally  great  ?  and  is 
not  the  church's  requiring  an  approbation  of  her  confession,  a  proper 
mean  to  be  used  against  the  latter,  as  well  as  against  the  former  of 
these  dangers  ? 

In  a  word,  though  the  qualifications  requisite  in  order  to  ministerial 
communion  be  different  from  those  necessary  to  the  communion  of 
private  christians,  yet  there  ought  to  be  no  difference  between  minis- 
ters and  other  members  of  the  church  in  respect  of  the  faith,  or  in  res- 
pect of  the  confession  of  it ;  and  a  departure  from  any  article  of  the 


38  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

true  faith,  ought  to  be  censured,  not  only  in  ministers,  but  also  in 
other  members. 

§  12.  If  our  time  were  not  gone,  I  would  urge,  as  an  argument 
against  the  scheme  of  catholic  communion,  that  it  is  inconsistent  with 
the  faithful  exercise  of  that  holy  discipline  which  Christ  appointed  to 
be  maintained  in  his  church-  This  is  implied  in  what  has  been  already 
offered.     But  the  importance  of  it  deserves  a  distinct  consideration. 

Alex.  I  would  be  glad  to  hear  your  observations  on  this  topic 
before  you  go.  I  shall  mention  any  exceptions  to  your  reasoning,  that 
may  occur. 

RuF.  The  neglect  of  this  discipline  is  highly  displeasing  to  the 
Lord  Christ.  He  severely  threatened  the  church  of  Pergamos,  for 
having  in  her  communion,  some  that  held  the  doctrine  of  Balaam,  and 
others  that  held  the  doctrine  of  the  Nicolaitans  ;  and  also  the  church 
of  Thyatira,  for  suffering  that  woman  Jezebel  to  teach  and  seduce  his 
servants.  Though  the  error  that  is  held  by  persons,  refusing  their 
consent  to  the  confession  of  a  particular  church,  may  not  be  so  gross 
as  the  errors  of  Balaam  and  the  Nicolaitans,  or  those  taught  by  Jeze- 
bel :  yet,  as  according  to  the  confession  of  that  church,  they  are  real 
errors,  they  really  contradict  the  doctrine  of  Christ ;  and,  therefore, 
are  things  that  he  hates  :  so  that  if  the  open  and  avowed  maintainers 
of  them  be  not  censured,  but  received  into  or  retained  in  the  commu- 
nion of  the  church,  that  communion  is  thereby  corrupted  :  and  any 
church,  which  is  chargeable  with  such  corruption,  ought  to  consider 
the  reproofs  and  threatenings  denounced  against  these  churches  as 
applicable  to  herself 

The  practice  of  this  discipline  is  enjoined,  when  the  church  is  di- 
rected to  purge  out  the  old  leaven ;  and  to  mark  and  avoid  those  who 
hold  doctrine  contrary  to  what  she  has  received  as  the  doctrine  of 
Christ,  Cor.  v.  6.  Y.  ''Know  ye  not  that  a  little  leaven  leaveneth  the 
whole  lump  ?  Purge  out  therefore  the  old  leaven,  that  ye  may  be  a 
new  lump,  as  ye  are  unleavened."  The  apostle  is  here  speaking  of  sa- 
cramental communion ;  and  shews,  not  only  that  every  church  mem- 
ber should,  in  the  exercise  of  faith  and  repentance,  purge  out  his  per- 
sonal impurities ;  but  that  the  church  ought  to  separate  from  her  com- 
munion, such  as,  upon  enquiry,  she  finds  to  be  leaven,  or  persons 
incorrigibly  attached  to  some  error  or  sinful  practice.  Rom.  xvi.  17. 
"Now  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  mark  them  who  cause  divisions  and 
offenses,  contrary  to  the  doctrine  which  ye  have  received  :  and  avoid 
them."  2  Thess.  iii.  6,  14  "Now  we  command  you,  brethren,  in  the 
name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  withdraw  yourselves  from  every 
brother  that  walketh  disorderly,  and  not  after  the  tradition  which  he 
received  of  us."  According  to  these  texts,  it  is  the  indispensable  duty 
of  a  church,  that  has  adopted  a  confession,  stating  no  other  doctrines 
than  such  as  are  contained  in  the  holy  scriptures,  to  hold  the  avowed 
and  obstinate  opposers  of  any  article  of  that  confession,  to  be  charge- 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  39 

able  with  causing  divisions  and  offenses,  contrary  to  the  doctrine  which 
she  has  received.  This  must  be  more  especially  the  case,  when  a  sep- 
arate society  is  erected  and  kept  up  on  purpose  to  oppose  any  such 
article  of  Christ's  truth.  Farther,  if  all  the  articles  of  a  church's  confes- 
sion be  according  to  the  tradition  of  the  apostles  recorded  in  scripture ; 
then,  it  must  be  good  order  to  acknowledge  them  all :  and  it  must  be 
disorderly  to  reject  any  of  them.  Those  who  persist  openly  and  ob- 
stinately in  opposing  the  doctrine  that  we  have  received  as  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ,  and  in  thus  causing  divisions  and  offenses,  are  to  be 
marked  and  avoided.  But  surely  we  cannot  be  said,  in  the  sense  of 
these  texts,  to  avoid  them,  or  withdraw  from  them,  while  we  admit 
them  to  all  the  intimacy  of  sacramental  communion. 

Alex.  With  regard  to  the  text  in  2  Thess.  iii.  6.  Paul  explains  his 
meaning,  verse  11.  "For  we  hear,  says  he,  that  there  are  some  who 
walk  disorderly  among  you,  working  not  at  all,  but  are  busy-bodies  ;" 
adding,  verse  12.  "Now  them  that  are  such  we  command,  and  exhort 
by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  with  quietness  they  work,  and  eat 
their  own  bread. "  And,  by  way  of  stimulating  them  to  honest  indus- 
try, he  reminds  the  Thessalonians  of  an  order  he  had  passed,  when  he 
was  with  them  :  viz.  That  no  lazy  professor  of  religion,  should  receive 
any  support  from  the  public  charity  ;  which  is  the  import  of  the  com- 
mand, "That  if  any  would  not  work,  neither  should  he  eat."  from 
such  disorderly  persons,  the  Thessalonians  were  charged  to  withdraw; 
and  the  duty  of  Christians,  in  similar  cases,  is  still  the  same.* 

RuF.  I  grant  all  this  ;  but  what  then  ?  Because  the  apostle  here 
speaks  of  one  instance  of  walking  disorderly,  does  it  follow  that  there 
are  no  other  instances  of  such  walking  ?  or  that  other  instances  of  it, 
do  not  equally  w^arrant  the  withdrawing  which  the  apostle  enjoins  ? 
Surely,  the  obstinate  rejection  of  an  article  of  a  church's  confession, 
which  is  agreeable  to  the  tradition  received  from  the  apostles  by  the 
holy  scriptures,  must  warrant  the  censure  here  meant  by  ivithdraiving, 
no  less  than  the  indolent  neglect  of  the  business  of  a  worldly  calling. 

Alex.  But,  Rufus,  this  text  is  nothing  to  your  purpose ;  as  it  seems 
clear,  that  it  is  not  a  charge  to  withhold  church  communion. 

RuF.     How  does  it  seem  so  clear  ? 

Alex.  For  four  reasons :  1st,  The  terms  are  entirely  different  from 
those  which  the  scripture  elsewhere  uses,  in  regard  to  church  fellow- 
ship. 2ndly,  A  church,  in  her  collective  capacity,  does  not  withdraw 
herself  from  an  offender.  She  authoritatively  puts  him  away  from 
her  communion,  odly,  The  withdrawing  here  enjoined  was  to  be  a 
means  of  bringing  the  disorderly  brother  to  a  sense  of  his  misbeha- 
viour, and  a  compliance  with  the  apostle's  mandate  for  abandoning 
his  idle  and  impertinent  habits :  in  case  of  disobedience,  he  was  to  be 
reported  to  the  apostle  for  ulterior  judgment ;  and,  in  the  mean  time, 

*Plea,  &c.,  page  336,  337. 


40  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

his  brethren  were  to  have  no  company  with  him,  verse  14.  There- 
fore, he  was  still  in  communion.  4thly,  Even  after  this  withdrawing, 
this  reporting,  this  having  no  company  with  him,  he  was  not  to  be  ac- 
counted as  an  enemy,  but  admonished  as  a  brother. 

The  alternative  is,  that  Paul  speaks  of  private  familiar  intercourse. 
His  terms  apply  to  this  exactly. 

The  only  other  place  in  which  the  word  rendered  have  company, 
occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  is  in  1  Cor.  v.  9,  11.  where  it  is  also 
used  in  the  sense  now  mentioned.  If  the  offender  resisted  these  milder 
proceedings,  they  were  to  decline  his  company  altogether;  but  to 
leave  with  his  conscience,  a  friendly  and  faithful  admonition  of  his  sin, 
of  his  disgrace  and  of  his  peril.  * 

KuF.  with  regard  to  your  first  and  second  reason,  it  may  be  ob- 
served, that  when  I  quoted  this  text,  I  did  not  mean  that  the  apostle 
is  here  formally  directing  the  office-bearers  in  the  church,  how  to  inflict 
censure  on  those  that  walk  disorderly  ;  but  that,  in  this  solemn  charge, 
he  declared  persons  of  such  a  description  to  be  proper  objects  of  sen- 
sure;  and  warned  the  Thessalonians  [speaking  to  them  in  general, 
and  not  exclusively  to  the  office-bearers,]  to  have  neither  sacramental 
communion,  nor  unnecessary  private  intercourse  with  them,  while  they 
persisted  in  their  offensive  conduct.  Declining  public  sacramental 
communion,  however,  with  such  open  offenders,  was  not  less,  but  more 
necessary  as  a  means  of  making  them  ashamed,  than  the  declining  of 
private  intercourse  with  them.  The  Greek  word  rendered  have  com- 
pany signifies  familiar,  friendly,  brotherly  intercourse ;  which  might 
be  in  religious  as  well  as  in  civil  society ;  and  from  which  we  cannot 
reasonably  suppose,  that  the  apostle  would  have  directed  the  Thessa- 
lonians to  exclude  any,  with  whom  they  had,  at  the  same  time,  regular 
sacramental  communion.  The  expression,  note  such  a  person,  repre- 
sents him  as  an  object  of  church  censure ;  as  bearing  a  public  mark, 
serving  to  distinguish  him  from  those  that  were  in  the  full  enjoyment 
of  the  privileges  of  the  visible  church.  As  to  your  assertion,  that  the 
offending  brother  was  to  be  referred  to  the  apostle  for  ulterior  judg- 
ment, I  can  see  no  ground  for  it  in  the  text.  On  the  contrary,  the 
judgment  here  delivered,  is  decisive  and  final.  You  allow,  that  when 
the  apostle  wrote  this  epistle,  the  offender  was  still  in  communion. 
This  may  be  justly  inferred  from  his  being  called  a  brother,  and  from 
the  direction  to  withdraw  from  him,  and  to  note  him ;  but  not  from 
the  Greek  word  in  the  sense  to  which  it  is  limited  in  your  criticism : 
for,  supposing  him  to  have  been  secluded  from  sacramental  commu- 
nion, such  a  direction  with  regard  to  the  private  carriage  of  the 
Thessalonians  towards  him  would  have  been  proper,  accordingly, 
their  having  no  company  with  him  is  mentioned  as  what  was  to  be 
the  manner  of  their  behaviour  towards  him  in  consequence  of  their 

*Plea,&c.,  page  337,  338. 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  41 

having  noted  him  by  some  censure  of  the  church.  Indeed,  supposing 
him  to  have  persisted  in  his  offensive  conduct,  and  the  office-bearers 
and  other  members  of  the  Thessalonian  church  to  have  obeyed  the 
apostle's  command,  to  withdraw  from  him,  and  to  have  no  company 
with  him  ;  it  is  not  conceivable,  that  they  could,  at  the  same  time,  con- 
tinue to  have  sacramental  communion  with  him.  The  apostle's  direc- 
ting the  Thessalonians  not  to  account  him  as  an  enemy,  but  to  admon- 
ish him  as  a  brother,  does  not  prove  that  he  was  not  to  be  laid  under 
the  censure  of  the  church.  There  are  various  degrees  of  church  cen- 
sure. Admonition,  rebuke,  suspension  from  sealing  ordinances,  are 
salutary  and  medicinal.  When  a  person  becomes  the  object  of  such 
censures,  though  he  may  be  considered  in  spiritual  danger  and  infir- 
mity, yet  he  is  not  to  be  counted  as  an  enemy,  but  as  a  brother.  It 
seems  plain,  therefore,  that  the  person  here  described,  was  an  object 
of  church  censure  ;  and  one  who,  while  he  continued  such,  was  not  to 
be  admitted  to  sacramental  communion. 

It  may  be  added,  that  one  of  the  instructions  which  this  passage 
affords  us  is,  that  our  withdrawing  from  persons  or  churches,  on  ac- 
count of  their  obstinacy  in  opposing  some  truth  or  duty  of  God's  word, 
is  consistent  with  our  owning  them  as  brethren  in  the  Lord :  for 
though  the  Thessalonians  were  to  note  a  church  member  as  walking 
disorderly,  and  to  have  no  company  with  him ;  yet,  they  were  still  to 
regard  him  as  a  brother. 

Alex.  The  apostle,  however,  does  not  mean,  that  we  are  to  hold 
no  sacramental  communion  with  churches  or  their  members,  that  have 
defects  or  blemishes.  Did  he  say  to  the  christians  of  his  time,  the 
churches  of  Corinth,  of  Rome,  of  Galatia,  are  disorderly,  and 'you 
must  have  no  communion  with  them,  or  with  their  members  ?  no  such 
thing.* 

RuF.  They,  who,  on  presbyterian  principles^  oppose  what  you  term 
catholic  communion,  are  far  from  saying,  that  we  are  to  hold  no  com- 
munion with  churches  or  their  members  that  have  blemishes.  It  is 
unfair,  as  was  formerly  observed,  to  impute  to  them  the  opinion  of  the 
Brownists.  This  charge  is  just  as  groundless  as  that,  which  the  Pa- 
pists bring  against  the  Protestants,  of  the  same  sort  of  schism  with 
that  of  the  ancient  Donatists.  I  am  far  from  charging  the  various 
religious  societies,  whose  saci'amental  communion,  I  think,  we  ought 
to  decline,  with  as  great  corruption  as  that  of  the  Popish  church; 
but  the  principle,  on  which  we  ought  to  decline  sacramental  commu- 
nion with  them,  is  the  same ;  namely,  That  it  is  an  unlawful  commun- 
ion, in  which  we  cannot  consistently  make  a  faithful  profession  of  Di- 
vine truth ;  nor  exhibit  a  judicial  testimony  for  it,  according  to  that 
conformity  to  the  word  of  God,  which  we,  on  sufficient  grounds,  be- 
lieve his  church  has  attained.     On  this  principle,  it  is  evident,  that  it 

*  Plea,  &c.,  page  840. 


42  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

is  not  the  occurrence  of  defects  or  blemishes,  with  which  a  church 
may  be  charpceable  ;  it  is  not  even  the  errors  and  corruptions  of  indi- 
viduals or  of  factions  in  a  church,  that  are  the  bars  to  our  sacramen-' 
tal  communion  with  her ;  but  such  errors  and  corruptions,  such  back- 
sliding courses  as  she,  in  her  collective  or  representative  capacity, 
avows,  justifies,  and  holds  fast  as  a  part  of  her  profession ;  disregard- 
ing any  judicial  testimony  that  has  been  given  against  such  evils. 
_  Whatever  faults  or  disorders  the  apostle  Paul  reproved  in  the  chris- 
tians at  Corinth,  at  Rome,  or  in  Galatia;  we  have  no  account,  that, 
after  his  reproofs  and  injunctions,  the  churches  in  these  places  per- 
sisted obstinately  in  the  evils  reproved ;  or,  that  the  apostle,  while 
they,  in  their  united  capacity,  avowed  their  rejection  of  any  one  of 
the  doctrines  or  commands  of  Christ  delivered  by  him,  allowed  him- 
self or  others  to  have  sacramental  communion  with  them.  How  the 
apostle  would  have  acted  in  such  a  case,  seems  to  be  sufficiently  de- 
termined by  the  passage  we  have  just  now  been  considering;  "  If  any 
man,"  says  he,  "  obey  not  our  word  by  this  epistle^  note  that  man,  and 
have  no  company  with  him,  that  he  may  be  ashamed."  By  a  parity 
of  reason,  would  not  the  apostle  have  said :  If  any  particular  church 
obey  not  our  word,  or  in  her  ecclesiastical  capacity,  refuse  to  receive 
any  doctrine  or  command  delivered  by  us  in  writing,  under  the  infalli- 
ble direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  note  that  church,  and  have  no  com- 
munion with  her  or  her  members,  that  they  may  be  ashamed  of  their 
error  or  disorder  ? 

Alex.  It  is  a  mistake  to  think,  that  a  particular  church  has  no  right 
to  censure  disorderly  members  of  other  churches,  who  apply  to  her  for 
sacramental  communion.  The  catholic  church  has  the  right  of  re- 
straining a  disorderly  member  by  the  agency  of  any  one  particular 
church,  in  which  he  may  have  enjoyed  her  communion.  Any  indi- 
vidual, wearing  and  disgracing  the  christian  name,  provided  his  church 
membership  be  ascertained,  may,  according  to  the  statues  of  the  Re- 
deemer's kingdom,  be  called  to  account,  reproved,  excommunicated, 
by  any  christian  church,  on  the  spot  where  he  happens  to  be,  even 
without  an  act  of  formal  communion  there  ;  much  more  then,  after 
that  act.* 

Rup.  I  cordially  agree  to  this  observation  ;  1  think  it  most  useful 
and  important.  But  it  appears  to  be  contrary  to  your  scheme  of  catho- 
lic communion.  For,  in  the  first  place,  the  right  of  restraining  a  dis- 
orderly member,  which  you  ascribe  to  the  catholic  church,  is  just  what 
I  have  been  contending  for,  as  the  right  of  every  particular  church  ; 
the  right  of  refusing  to  admit  to  her  sacramental  communion,  the 
avowed  and  obstinate  opposers  of  any  article  of  her  scriptural  profes- 
sion :  whereas,  according  to  your  catholic  scheme,  she  has  no  right  to 
refuse  it  to  such  opposers,  unless  the  article  opposed  be  what  you  deem 

*Plea,  &c.,  page  363,  364. 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  43 

essential.  But  such  refusal  is  certainly  a  right  of  the  catholic  church  ; 
for  the  catholic  church  requires  all  attainable  conformity  to  the  word 
of  God,  in  all  particular  churches,  and  in  all  their  members.  She  can 
not,  consistently,  spare  or  tolerate  one  error  or  corruption  in  doctrine, 
worship,  discipline  or  government.  The  errors  and  corruptions  that 
prevail  in  particular  churches,  are  not  to  be  ascribed  to  the  catholic 
church  as  delineated  in  the  scriptures.  When  I  say  this  of  the  catholic 
church,  as  the  body  of  Christ,  I  speak  of  what  she  ought  to  be,  not 
of  what  she  is,  in  the  present  degenerate  state  of  many  particular 
churches.  I  speak  of  her  in  tl^e  same  sense  in  which,  I  think,  you 
must  be  understood,  when  you  say,  she  has  the  right  of  restraining  dis- 
orderly members  by  the  agency  of  any  one  particular  church ;  that  is, 
as  she  is  morally  incapable  of  sanctioning  or  countenancing  any  dis- 
order, any  real  error  or  corruption. 

In  the  second  place,  I  observe,  that  the  exercise  of  discipline  in  any 
particular  church,  with  regard  to  the  members  of  other  churches,  must 
either  have,  or  not  have,  the  peculiar  corruptions  retained  and  justified 
by  these  churches  for  its  object.  If  the  exercise  of  discipline  you  pro- 
pose, has  no  respect  to  these  peculiar  corruptions,  but  only  to  other 
vices  and  immoralities,  then,  it  is  nothing  to  the  purpose  of  answering 
this  objection  against  your  scheme  of  catholic  communion  :  (I  mean 
this  objection,  that  it  renders  church  discipline  partial  and  unfaithful ;) 
while  these  peculiar  corruptions,  which  are  supposed  to  be  as  really 
contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  and  to  the  public  profession  of  the  par- 
ticular church  in  which  this  communion  takes  place,  as  any  other  evils, 
are  spared  and  tolerated.  But  if  the  discipline  proposed  with  regard 
to  the  members  of  other  churches,  respects  these  peculiar  corruptions ; 
even  corruptions,  which,  though  they  may  not  be  deemed  to  be  in 
essentials,  are  really  contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  and  to  the  public 
profession  of  such  a  particular  church  ;  then,  it  must  be  a  discipline 
that  subjects  the  members  of  these  churches  to  censure,  for  their  pe- 
culiar corruptions  ;  and,  if  they  are  obstinate,  to  exclusion  from  sacra- 
mental communion.  If  Prelacy,  for  example,  be  the  peculiar  corrup- 
tion in  which  a  person  is  involved,  by  being  a  member  of  a  corrupt 
church  ;  then,  according  to  this  discipline,  a  particular  church,  which 
is  faithful,  can  have  no  sacramental  communion  with  him,  while  he 
avows  an  obstinate  attachment  to  that  corruption  ;  or,  till  he  acknowl- 
edges it  to  be  sinful,  and  a  cause  of  God's  displeasure  with  his  church. 
If  a  particular  church  were  to  exercise  discipline  faithfully  on  the 
members  of  other  churches,  from  whose  communion  she  has,  upon 
scriptural  principles,  withdrawn,  and  continues  separate,  she  would, 
in  the  first  place,  censure  them  for  continuing  in  the  communion  of 
these  corrupt  churches.  How  can  we  censure  our  own  members  for 
opposing  any  article  of  our  confession  or  testimony  agreeable  to  the 
scriptures ;  and  yet  exempt  from  censure  the  members  of  other 
churches,  chargeable  with  the  same  offense ;  merely,'  because,  it  is  an 


44  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

offense  practised  and  justified  by  these  churches  ?  Surely  a  real  of- 
fense, condemned  by  the  word  of  God,  is  not  obliterated  nor  even 
extenuated  by  the  multitudes,  under  the  name  of  churches,  that  are 
involved  in  it.  We  are  expressly  forbidden  to  follow  a  multitude  to 
do  any  evil. 

Alex,  Here  is  the  mischief:  every  one  accounts  that  to  be  order, 
which  he  has  been  accustomed  to  practice ;  and  whosoever  does  not 
move  in  his  track,  walks  disorderly.* 

RuF.  It  is  a  great  mischief,  in  dealing  with  the  erroneous,  that  they 
never  adhere  to  the  true  state  of  the  question.  By  this  means,  the 
clearest  evidence  of  what  is  offered  for  their  conviction,  is  eluded.  At 
present,  the  subject  of  discussion  is  not,  how  far  any  are  right  or  wrong 
in  charging  others  with  actual  disorder;  but  the  abstract  question, 
Whether  we  ought  to  have  sacramental  communion  with  such  as  pub- 
licly profess  their  purpose  of  adhering  to  what  the  scripture  teaches  us, 
and  our  own  profession  justly  binds  us  to  consider  as  real  disorder. 

I  only  add  at  present,  that  I  am  persuaded,  that  the  apostle  Paul 
would  have  pronounced  any  person  a  disorderly  walker,  who  is  an  open 
and  obstinate  rejecter  of  any  one  of  the  doctrines  or  commands  of  Christ ; 
and  that  he  would  not  have  reckoned  the  offense  less,  but  greater,  for 
this  circumstance,  that  the  doctrine  or  command  rejected,  is  an  express 
article  of  the  confession  of  a  particular  church :  for  it  was  Paul's  man- 
ner to  assert  the  truth  in  the  most  faithful  and  pointed  manner  against 
the  errors  that  began,  very  early,  to  trouble  the  New  Testament  church. 
It  seems  to  have  been  a  less  evil,  than  that  now  specified,  for  which  he 
withstood  Peter  to  the  face,  as  not  walking  uprightly  according  to  the 
truth  of  the  gospel. 

Our  time  will  not  permit  us  to  pursue  the  subject  any  farther  at 
present. 

Alex.  If  you  please,  Kufus,  we  may  resume  our  conversation  to- 
morrow, after  breakfast. 

RuF.  I  have  no  objection  to  your  proposal. 

*  Plea,  &c.  page  343. 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  45 


DIALOGUE  III. 

The  character  of  a  church  with  which  we  are  to  have  sacramental  communion — 
The  import  of  Calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesws— Sacramental  communion 
witli  what  may,  in  some  sense,  be  termed  a  true  church  of  Christ,  not  always 
our  duty — Sacramental  communion  with  those  with  whom  Christ  has  com- 
munion, in  some  cases,  not  warrantable — Nor,  in  some  cases,  with  those  that 
belong  to  the  catholic  church — For  always  with  a  particular  church,  on  account 
of  its  duty  to  dispense  the  Lord's  supper— The  christian  character  which  en- 
titles to  sacramental  communion. 

§  13.  RuFUS.  So  we  have  met  according  to  our  agreement;  let  us 
proceed  in  the  consideration  of  the  question  concerning  what  is  termed 
catholic  communion. 

Alex.  The  question  concerning  a  church,  in  order  to  our  commu- 
nion with  her,  ought  to  be,  What  is  her  substantial  character  ?  Has 
she  truth,  the  ordinances,  the  Spirit  of  Christ  ?  * 

RuF.  The  expression,  substantial  character,  seems  to  be  one  of 
those  well-sounding  phrases,  which  we  are  apt  to  use  in  common  con- 
versation, without  knowing  precisely  what  we  mean  by  them.  But, 
with  regard  to  the  truths  and  ordinances  of  Christ,  I  should  think,  a 
christian  ought  to  try  a  church,  as  he  tries  his  own  heart,  by  the  uni- 
versality of  her  regard  to  them.  A  church,  as  well  as  a  believer,  may 
justly  say,  "  Then  shall  I  not  be  ashamed,  when  I  have  respect  to  all 
thy  commandments."  A  church  may  hold  some  truths  and  ordinances 
of  Christ ;  and  yet,  while  she  refuses  to  maintain  others  in  their  purity, 
particularly  such  as  are  much  opposed  in  the  day  wherein  we  live,  she 
may  be  chargeable  with  great  unfaithfulness  to  the  Lord  Christ.  And 
how  are  we  to  know  whether  a  church  has  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  but  by 
the  impartiality  of  her  regard  to  all  his  truths  and  institutions  !  This 
is  intimated  in  the  universal  terms  that  are  used  with  regard  to  the 
things,  which  the  Holy  Spirit  teaches  believers.  "  The  Spirit  of  truth 
shall  guide  you  into  all  the  truth.  We  have  an  unction  from  the  Holy 
One,  whereby  we  know  all  things." 

Alex.  Will  you  say,  that  we  ought  never  to  communicate,  but  with 
the  members  of  a  perfect  church,  f 

RuF.  By  no  means  ;  but  it  should  be  our  concern,  that  the  church 
with  which  we  communicate  be  faithful.  There  are  three  things  ne- 
cessary to  entitle  a  church  to  that  character  ;  each  of  which  is  sub- 
verted by  the  latitudinarian  scheme  of  church  communion. 

*  Plea,  &c.,  page  343.  t  Id.  page  323. 


46  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

The  first  of  these  things  is  constancy,  in  adhering  to  whatever  de- 
gree of  reformation  has  been  attained.  The  Lord's  kindness,  in 
bringing  a  professing  people  to  a  purer  profession  of  the  truth,  and  to 
a  purer  observation  of  her  ordinances,  than  many  others  which  bear 
the  christian  name,  ought  to  be  acknowledged  with  lively  gratitude,  as 
laying  them  under  a  special  obligation  to  persevere  in  their  adherence 
to  the  whole  of  that  profession,  and  not  to  lose  anything  which  he  has 
wrought  for  them.  Hence  our  Lord  gives  that  solemn  charge  to  the 
churches  of  Asia  again  and  again,  "  Hold  fast  that  which  thou  hast," 
Rev.  ii.  25,  iii.  11.  And  it  is  always  the  duty  of  the  church,  to  attend 
to  what  she  has  attained,  and  to  walk  according  to  that  rule,  Philip, 
iii.  16.  We  are  enjoined  "to  hold  fast  the  profession  of  the  faith 
without  wavering,"  Heb.  x.  23  :  without  doubting,  without  departing 
from  the  least  iota  of  it ;  or  even  from  the  scriptural  mode  of  profess- 
ing the  faith  that  has  been  attained.  But  a  church,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  is  receding  from  the  scriptural  profession  which  she  has  attained, 
when  she  has  sacramental  communion  with  the  avowed  opposers  of 
any  article  of  that  profession.  A  church,  that  has  made  a  good  pro- 
fession of  the  doctrines  of  grace,  falls  away  from  it,  when  she  holds 
sacramental  communion  with  Socinians  and  Arminians :  a  church, 
that  has  made  a  public  profession  of  her  faith  concerning  Presbyterial 
church  government,  as  the  only  government  which  Christ  has  appoint- 
ed to  be  exercised  in  his  church,  falls  away  from  that  profession,  when 
she  holds  sacramental  communion  with  Episcopalians  or  Independents. 
In  like  manner,  a  church  that  has  exhibited  a  judicial  testimony  against 
the  prevailing  errors  and  corruptions  of  the  times,  falls  away  from  that 
testimony,  when  she  holds  communion  with  the  known  opposers  of  it 

Another  thing,  which  belongs  to  the  character  of  a  faithful  church, 
is  the  bold  and  open  profession  of  controverted  truths.  We  read  of 
the  present  truth  which  christians  ought  to  know  and  be  established  in, 
2  Pet.  i.  12  :  and  of  the  word  of  Christ's  patience,  which  some  are 
commended  for  keeping.  Rev.  iii.  10 :  by  which  we  may  understand 
any  article  of  the  christian  religion,  which  is  much  despised  and  re- 
proached ;  which  christians,  on  that  account,  are  tempted  to  relinquish  ; 
and  the  faithful  holding  of  which  is  continually  an  exercise  of  their 
faith  and  patience.  The  present  truth,  or  word  of  Christ's  patience, 
is  often  varying  ;  it  is  sometimes  one  truth  or  duty,  sometimes  another. 
In  itself,  or  comparatively  considered,  it  may  be  something  less  im- 
portant. In  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  it  was  the  duty  of  ob- 
serving the  ceremonial  prohibition  of  the  eating  of  swine's  flesh.  It 
has  been  the  scriptural  form  of  church  government,  or  of  religious 
worship,  as  well  as  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  or  justification  through  his 
imputed  righteousness.  But  the  truth  or  duty,  in  this  case,  derives  a 
temporary  importance  from  the  present  opposition  made  to  it ;  and 
fi'om  the  trial  which  is  thereby  taken  of  the  faithfulness  of  professors. 
A  church  and  her  members  are  unfaithful,  when  they  decline  the  open 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  47 

and  particular  profession  of  any  one  such  controverted  articles  of 
the  christian  religion  :  nor  will  their  profession  of  all  the  other  articles 
of  that  religion  excuse  or  exempt  them  from  the  charge  of  unfaithful- 
ness, while  they  obstinately  refuse  to  acknowledge  that  which  is  con- 
troverted. By  such  an  article  God  takes  trial  of  churches,  as  he  took 
trial  of  Saul,  by  the  command  to  destroy  the  Amalekites ;  of  the 
remnant  of  the  Jews  that  came  to  Jeremiah  to  enquire  the  word  of 
the  Lord,  by  the  prohibition  of  going  to  Egypt ;  and  of  the  young 
man  enquiring  what  he  should  do  to  inherit  eternal  life,  by  the  duty 
of  parting  with  his  large  possessions  at  Christ's  call.  All  this  doctrine 
is  exploded  by  the  latitudinarian  scheme  of  church  communion  ;  ac- 
cording to  which  a  particular  church,  instead  of  contending  for  the 
present  truth,  or  the  truth  that  is  controverted,  must  admit  to  her 
communion  the  most  obstinate  and  avowed  opposers  of  the  truth  ;  nor 
can  she  consistently  inflict  the  slightest  censure,  not  even  an  admoni- 
tion, for  the  most  open  contempt  of  it.  Nay,  she  must  allow  her 
members  to  have  sacramental  communion  with  a  church  whose  public 
profession  is  in  direct  opposition  to  such  a  truth,  and  to  declare  their 
agreement  with  that  very  profession  in  the  act  of  communicating 
with  her. 

The  third  thing,  belonging  to  the  character  of  a  faithful  church,  is, 
that  she  is  sincerely  endeavoring  to  come  nearer  to  perfection  in  re- 
spect of  her  communion.  "  Let  us  go  on,"  says  the  apostle,  "to  per- 
fection," Heb.  vi.  1.  It  is  true,  there  is  no  perfect  church  upon  earth, 
as  there  is  no  perfect  saint.  Yet,  as  every  true  believer  is  aiming  at 
perfection  in  holiness  ;  so  a  church,  as  far  as  she  is  faithful,  aims  at 
perfection  in  her  communion.  There  are  two  things  necessary  to  this 
perfection.  One  is,  the  integrity  of  her  profession,  as  including  an 
adherence  to  all  the  doctrines  and  commandments  of  Christ.  The 
other  is,  the  harmony  of  her  members  being  such,  that  they  all  think 
and  speak  the  same  thing.  It  is  evident,  that  a  church  is  not  aiming 
at  this  perfection,  whose  allowed  practice  it  is,  to  admit  to  her  sacra- 
mental communion,  the  avowed  opposers  of  any  doctrine,  which  she 
acknowledges  as  taught  in  the  word  of  God  ;  or  of  any  form  of  wor- 
ship or  church  government,  which  she  holds  to  have  been  instituted  by 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  A  church,  that  is  going  on  towards  perfec- 
tion, instead  of  seeking  communion  with  the  open  opposers  of  her 
confession,  will  study  to  be  more  exact  in  receiving  none  to  her  com- 
munion, but  such  as  adhere  to  every  article  of  it ;  and,  instead  of  ren- 
dering the  articles  of  her  confession  fewer  or  more  ambiguous,  she  will 
endeavor  to  have  the  truths  of  God  and  the  duties  enjoined  in  his 
word,  exhibited  in  her  confession  or  testimony  more  largely  and  par- 
ticularly, according  to  the  prevalence  of  contrary  errors  and  corrup- 
tions. It  is  this  endeavor,  that  distinguishes  a  faithful  reforming,  from 
a  declining  and  backsliding,  church. 

Alex.  I  will  not  quarrel  with  a  church  about  forms,  about  cere- 


48  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

monies,  about  any  of  these  points,  in  which  our  disagreement  does  not 
prevent  us  from  being  one  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  For  the  sake  of 
that  transcendant  common  interest,  I  will  walk  with  her  in  love  and 
fellowship.  The  question  is  not  about  substance,  but  about  accident ; 
not  about  those  vital  principles  and  virtues  which  constitute  the  solid 
glory  of  a  church,  and  are  the  seal  of  God's  own  Spirit,  but  about  im- 
perfections, which  neither  destroy  their  being,  nor  hinder  their  pre- 
dominance ;  and  especially  about  those  things  in  which  she  differs  from 
our  own  peculiarities.  Here  is  the  huge  stumbling-block — the  inex- 
piable transgression.* 

RuF.  You  rightly  call  us,  Alexander,  to  attend  to  the  state  of  the 
question.  If  it  were  enquired,  whether  any  church  might  warrantably 
censure,  or  exclude  persons  from  sacramental  communion  on  account 
of  their  refusing  an  approbation  of  the  doctrines  and  commandments 
of  men,  or  of  the  forms  and  ceremonies  which  men  have  introduced 
into  the  worship  of  God,  I  would  readily  answer  in  the  negative.  But 
it  is  plain,  that  the  question  about  catholic  or  latitudinarian  communion 
is,  Whether  a  church  ought  to  admit  to  her  sacramental  communion 
such  as  obstinately  reject  any  article  of  her  confession  containing 
nothing  but  some  truth  revealed  or  duty  enjoined  in  the  word  of  God, 
I  see  not  how  such  rejection  of  the  truth  can  be  denied  to  be  sin  ;  or  how 
the  of&ce-bearers  of  the  church,  when  it  comes  regularly  before  them, 
(as  it  must  do  when  they  are  judging  who  are  to  be  admitted  to  sacra- 
mental fellowship,)  can  let  it  pass  without  censure.  "  Them  that  sin," 
these  office-bearers  are  bound  to  "rebuke  before  all. "  And  if  the  offenders 
are  obstinate,  and  cannot  be  brought  to  an  acknowledgment  of  the 
truth,  higher  censure  becomes  necessary.  Such  is  the  order,  accord- 
ing to  which  the  word  of  God  directs  his  church  to  deal  with  persons 
chargeable  with  error  either  in  judgment  or  practice.  The  office- 
bearers of  the  church  may  have  a  judgment  of  charity  concerning 
some  that  have  fallen  into  grievous  error ;  that  as  to  their  state  they 
are  still  one  with  them  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  But  what  then  ? 
May  the  office-bearers,  on  that  account,  dispense  with  the  order  that 
Christ  hath  appointed  ?  May  they  admit  such  offenders  to  sacramental 
communion,  without  requiring  them  to  submit  to  any  censure  on  ac- 
count of  their  error  ?  Or,  if  these  offenders  obstinately  refuse  to  sub- 
mit, and  persist  in  their  error,  must  the  office-bearers,  disregarding  the 
order  of  Christ's  house,  admit  them  to  his  table,  notwithstanding  their 
obstinacy  ?  By  no  means  :  Their  doing  so  would  be  both  dishonoring 
to  the  Lord  Christ,  who  appointed  that  order,  and  injurious  to  the 
souls  of  the  offenders  themselves,  for  whose  good  it  was  appointed  :  and 
the  Lord's  people  would  have  cause  to  fear  that  he  would  make  a 
breach  upon  them,  because  they  sought  him  not  after  the  due  order. 

I  may  farther  observe,  that  an  article  of  a  church's  confession,  which 

♦Plea,  &c.  page  342,  343. 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  49 

is  really  a  portion  of  the  christian  religion,  and  acknowledged  to  be  so, 
ought  not  to  be  called  an  accident ;  since  it  is  necessary  to  the  perfec- 
tion of  the  christian  religion,  and  was  designed  by  infinite  wisdom  to 
be  so.  Nor  ought  it  to  136  represented  as  a  peculiar'ty  of  that  church, 
since  it  ought  to  be  held  by  the  whole  catholic  church ;  nor  ought  the 
evil  of  denying  it  to  be  minced  and  palliated,  by  giving  it  the  name  of 
a  trivial  imperfection ;  since  it  belongs  to  that  unbelief  which  makes 
God  a  liar.  Such  an  article  of  a  church's  confession  is  indeed  a  stum- 
bling-block, in  the  sense  in  which  Christ  himself  is  so  to  many.  I  am 
persuaded,  that  the  rejection  of  the  least  of  all  the  truths  or  institutions 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  is  such  a  transgression,  as  cannot  be  expiated  other- 
wise than  by  his  infinitely  precious  blood. 

§  14.  Alex.  The  word  of  God  extends  the  privilege  of  whatever  com- 
munion the  church  enjoys,  to  all  them  who  call  upon  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus.  Calling  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  is  not  a  loose  nor 
equivocal  phrase.  It  is  a  comprehensive,  yet  precise  and  well-defined 
character  of  a  real  and  orderly  christian.  Its  terms  must  be  interpre- 
ted by  those  fuller  declarations  of  the  scripture  to  which  it  refers,  and 
of  which  it  is  a  summary.  Thus,  the  name  of  Jesus  includes  whatever 
is  peculiar  to  him,  as  the  Saviour  of  sinners  :  for  example,  the  doctrine 
of  his  person  ;  of  his  righteousness  ;  of  his  sacrifice  ;  of  his  interces- 
sion ;  of  his  authority ;  briefly,  of  his  fulness,  as  the  fountain  of  all 
that  grace,  which  his  redeemed  receive  now  ;  and  of  all  that  glory, 
which  they  shall  enjoy  hereafter.  Calling  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  is  equivalent  to  such  a  profession  of  faith  in  him  as  contains  the 
embracing  him,  in  his  saving  offices,  bearing  testimony  to  his  cause 
and  cross,  waiting  upon  him  in  his  ordinances,  addressing  him  in  acts 
of  direct  worship,  submitting  to  his  authority,  and  keeping  his  com- 
mandments. '*Let  every  one, "  says  Paul,  "who  names  the  name  of  Christ, 
depart  from  iniquity. "  This  is  our  great  practical  test.  They  who 
are  without  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  must  not  indeed  presume  to  talk  of 
their  virtues.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  they  who  do  not  glorify  him  as 
made  of  God  unto  them  sanctification,  crucifying  the  flesh  with  its 
affections  and  lusts,  and  studying  to  be  holy  in  all  manner  of  conver- 
sation, can  derive  no  true  comfort  from  their  doctrinal  accuracy  ;  nor 
be  allowed  to  plead  it  as  a  valid  title  to  sacramental  fellowship.  Faith, 
without  works,  is  dead  in  the  judgment  of  God  and  man.* 

RuF.  The  view  you  have  given  of  the  character  of  those  who  call  on 
the  Lord  Jesus,  I  believe  to  be  just.  Allowing,  then,  that  this  charac- 
ter, according  to  your  view  of  it,  should  regulate  the  church's  admis- 
sion of  persons  to  sacramental  communion,  it  will  follow,  that  any 
open  deviation  from  this  character,  must  expose  a  church  member  to 
censure,  and,  while  he  obstinately  persists  in  it,  to  suspension  from 
the  Lord's  table.     They  are,  however,  chargeable  with  such  deviation 

*Plea,  &c.,  pages  319,  320. 
4 


50  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

from  this  character,  who  refuse  to  bear  testimony  to  the  cause  of 
Christ,  to  his  whole  cause.  But  it  cannot  be  denied,  that  every  article 
of  a  church's  confession,  expressing  adherence  to  any  of  the  truths  or 
institutions  of  Jesus  Christ,  belongs  to  his  cause  ;  and  therefore,  the 
open  rejection  of  such  an  article,  must  be  an  open  refusal  to  bear  tes- 
timony to  some  part  of  the  cause  of  Christ ;  and,  consequently,  is  an 
open  deviation  from  the  character  you  have  described  of  those  who 
call  on  the  Lord  Jesus ;  a  deviation,  which  obstinately  persisted  in, 
renders  the  censure  and  suspension,  now  mentioned,  necessary. 

Alex.  It  is  indeed  the  character  of  those  who  call  on  the  name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,  that  they  are  such  as  cherish  the  faith  of  the  cardinal 
truths,  and  bear  testimony  against  errors  affecting  the  substance  of  the 
gospel.  Such,  I  think,  no  church  should  exclude  from  sacramental 
communion  ;  though  they  refuse  to  acknowledge  a  non-essential  arti- 
cle of  the  church's  confession  ;  however  consonant  that  article  may  be 
to  the  scriptures.  I  suppose  you  cannot  deny  that  this  may  be  the 
case  with  persons  or  churches  that  may  be  justly  said  to  call  on  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

Rup.  If  this  character  of  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  be 
admitted  as  a  rule  of  sacramental  communion,  it  must  be  either  accord- 
ing to  the  whole  extent  of  its  import,  or  according  to  a  certain  part  of 
it.  If  this  character  be  a  rule  of  communion  only  according  to  a  part 
of  its  import,  so  that  there  are  some  things  belonging  to  it  which  need 
not  be  required  in  order  to  the  admission  of  persons  to  sacramental 
communion,  and  which  they  may  openly  and  obstinately  reject,  with- 
out being  liable  to  any  church  censure  ;  then  it  should  be  shown,  from 
the  scriptures,  what  these  things  are.  This  has  never  been,  and  never 
will  be  shown.  On  the  other  hand,  if  this  character  be  a  rule  of  church 
communion  according  to  its  whole  import,  then  every  open  deviation 
from  it,  that  comes  under  the  cognizance  of  the  office-bearers  of  the 
church,  ought  to  render  persons  liable  to  censure,  and  if  they  are  ob- 
stinate, to  exclusion  from  sacramental  communion. 

When  we  say,  that  those  to  whom  church  communion  is  to  ])e  ex- 
tended, are  such  as  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  or  christians ; 
we  do  not  mean  that  all  who  bear  such  a  designation  are  to  be  admit- 
ted to  sacramental  communion  indiscriminately,  and  without  any  en- 
quiry, whether  they  are  submitting  to  the  due  order  which  Christ  hath 
appointed  his  people  to  observe,  in  approaching  to  his  table.  A  person, 
who  is,  in  general  and  according  to  a  judgment  of  charity,  entitled  to 
the  character  of  one  that  calls  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  may  fail 
in  some  particular,  belonging  to  the  whole  extent  of  that  character,  as 
you  have  explained  it,  as  for  example,  in  that  of  assenting  to  a  particu- 
lar article  of  a  church's  confession  ;  which,  though  it  may  not  be  one 
of  the  more  important  articles,  is  certainly  consonant  to  the  word  of 
God.  When  this  is  the  case,  the  due  order,  according  to  which  a  per- 
son should  approach  to  the  Lord's  table,  requires  that  he  should  be 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  51 

one  who  calls  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  not  only  in  general,  but 
also  in  that  particular  ;  for  he  ought  not  to  be  admitted  to  sacramental 
communion,  under  the  character  of  one,  who  obstinately  persists  in 
any  one  thing,  which  according  to  the  church's  confession,  is  a  devia- 
tion from  Avhat  you  have  shown  to  be  included  in  the  import  of  calling 
on  the  Lord  Jesus. 

The  truth  is,  your  account  of  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 
as  the  character  of  those  with  whom  a  church  ought  to  have  sacramen- 
tal communion,  is  plainly  inconsistent  with  the  opinion,  that  a  church 
ought  to  require  no  other  profession  of  the  christian  religion  in  order 
to  that  communion,  than  a  profession  of  the  cardinal  truths,  or  of  such 
as  affect  the  substance  of  the  gospel.  For  this  opinion  supposes,  that 
there  are  some  other  truths  of  the  gospel,  which,  though  acknowledged 
to  be  such  in  the  public  profession  of  a  particular  church,  yet  not  being 
cardinal  truths,  nor  belonging  to  the  substance  of  the  gospel,  are  smaller 
truths,  the  open- denial  of  which  ought  not  to  be  a  ground  of  church 
censure,  or  of  exclusion  from  the  Lord's  table.  These  truths  are  said 
to  be  smaller  matters ;  and  they  may  be  so  in  a  comparative  sense. 
But,  absolutely  considered,  we  may  well  say  with  Mr.  Livingston, 
''Christ's  small  things  are  great  things."  You  have  granted,  that  a 
christian  is  bound  to  hold  the  least  tittle  of  what  he  acknowledges  to 
be  Divine  truth :  and  how  can  you  refuse  to  allow  the  church,  in  her 
collective  and  judicial  capacity,  to  be  under  the  same  obligation  ? 

§  15.  Alex.  What  a  spectacle  in  the  eyes  of  God,  of  angels,  and  of 
men,  is  a  number  of  churches,  all  wearing  the  same  name,  pleading  the 
authority  and  professing  substantially  the  faith  of  their  Redeemer,  pre- 
tending to  cherish  his  Spirit,  to  imitate  his  example,  and  to  promote 
his  kingdom ;  and  yet,  refusing  to  hold  communion  with  each  other,  on 
account  of  their  respective  corruptions.* 

RuF.  If  any  of  these  churches  are  persisting  in  real  corruptions,  or 
in  the  profession  or  practice  of  any  thing  really  contrary  to  the  word 
of  God,  it  is  plain,  that,  in  that  particular,  they  cannot  lawfully  plead 
the  authority  of  Christ ;  nor  justly  contend  that,  in  that  respect,  they 
are  cherishing  his  Spirit,  imitating  his  example,  or  promoting  his  king- 
dom. So  far  as  they  are  obstinately  attached  to  their  idol,  they  are 
holding  fast  deceit,  and  refusing  to  let  it  go.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the 
supposition  of  corruptions  in  these  churches  has  no  foundation  but  in 
misunderstanding  or  calumny ;  then,  three  things  must  follow.  First, 
That  it  ought  to  be  shown,  that  this  is  the  true  state  of  the  case ;  and 
that  what  was  called  a  corruption  of  any  of  these  churches,  was  either 
falsely  imputed  to  her,  or  was  in  truth  no  corruption,  but  a  truth  re- 
vealed or  a  duty  enjoined  by  the  word  of  God.  Secondly,  That,  in 
order  to  sacramental  communion,  these  churches  ought  to  acknowledge 
the  unjust  charges  they  have  brought  against  one  another.     These 

*  Plea,  &c.  page  323. 


52  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

churches  have  offended  one  another :  in  which  case,  reconciliation  ought 
to  go  before  sacramental  communion ;  and  there  is  no  cordial  recon- 
ciliation without  a  candid  acknowledgment  of  the  offence  that  has  taken 
place :  which  acknowledgment  ought  to  be  as  public  and  explicit  as 
the  offence.  Thirdly,  These  churches  ought  to  exist  no  longer,  as  so- 
cieties separate  from  one  another,  in  respect  of  religious  persuasion  or 
communion. 

Alex.  There  are  opinions,  feelings,  habits,  which  must  be  reduced 
much  nearer  than  they  are  to  some  common  standard,  before  it  could 
be  attempted  to  bring  them  into  one  organized  body,  without  the  dan- 
ger of  doing  more  harm  than  good.* 

R.UF.  There  is  not  a  more  solemn  exhortation  in  the  book  of  God, 
than  that  which  we  have  in  1  Cor.  i.  10,  "Now  I  beseech  you  brethren, 
in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  all  speak  the  same  thing ; 
and  that  there  be  no  divisions  among  you :"  no  divisions  for  the  main- 
taining of  what  is  contrary  to  truth  or  duty :  no  divisions  on  account 
of  indifferent  things ;  on  account  of  opinions,  feelings,  or  habits,  which 
are  not  sufficient  grounds  of  church  censure. 

According  to  the  Presbyterian,  the  only  scriptural  system  of  church 
government,  the  catholic  church  ought  to  be  all  comprehended  in  one 
organized  body,  having  many  organized  bodies  subordinate  to  it ;  but 
all  of  them  professing  the  same  faith,  and  subject  to  the  same  discip- 
line. While  the  catholic  church  is  not  thus  one,  it  is  so  far  in  a  state 
of  defection  from  the  Divine  rule  of  its  constitution.  All  the  parts  of 
the  catholic  church  ought  to  have  sacramental  communion  with  one 
another.  But  then  this  supposes,  not  only  their  agreement  in  the  doc- 
trine and  in  the  means  and  manner  of  Divine  worship,  but  also  their 
subjection  to  the  same  discipline  aud  government. 

Alex.  Though  the  churches,  which  I  just  now  described,  have  each 
a  distinct  ordinary  and  stated  communion  of  its  owm,  this  is  no  reason 
against  the  cultivation  of  friendly  intercourse — against  what  may  be 
called  church  hospitality — against  the  most  ungrudging  fellowship  in 
holy  ordinances,  as  opportunity  serves.  They,  who  should  live  very 
uncomfortably  under  the  same  roof,  may  yet  be  excellent  neighbors,  f 

KuF.  Were  a  person  to  come  into  his  neighbor's  house,  and  by  col- 
lusion with  some  unfaithful  servants,  partake  of  the  provisions  and 
other  privileges  of  the  family,  when  and  how  he  pleased,  in  contempt 
of  the  family  order ;  can  we  suppose  that  it  would  satisfy  the  head  of 
the  family,  to  be  told  that  nothing  was  meant  but  friendly  intercourse 
and  hospitality  ;  that  the  person  did  not  seek  to  dwell  under  the  same 
roof,  but  would  be  an  excellent  neighbor.  Would  not  the  master  of 
the  house  resent  such  injurious  conduct ;  and  forbid  such  a  person  to 
enter  his  house,  unless  he  would  comply  with  the  order  and  regula- 
tions of  the  family  ?     It  is  much  in  the  same  manner  that  a  person 

*  Plea,  &c.,  page  362.  f  Id.  page  363. 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  53 

treats  a  particular  church,  when  he  avows  his  contempt  of  some  part 
of  her  scriptural  profession,  or  of  her  scriptural  discipline ;  and  yet, 
through  the  unfaithfulness  of  her  office-bearers,  is  admitted  to  her 
sacramental  communion. 

Alex.  Are  not  all  the  churches,  I  alluded  to,  true  churches  of  Jesus 
Christ. 

RuF.  It  is  necessary  to  distinguish  between  a  true  church  and  a  pure 
church.  A  church,  that  has  all  these  things  necessary  to  the  being  of 
a  church,  and  that  makes  an  external  visible  profession  of  such  doc- 
trines as  are  absolutely  necessary  to  be  known  and  believed  in  order 
to  salvation,  is  a  true  church.  By  a  pure  church  is  meant,  not  a  per- 
fect church,  but  one  that  through  the  goodness  and  mercy  of  God,  has 
attained  a  great  measure  of  conformity  to  the  Divine  pattern,  in  her 
doctrine,  worship,  government  and  discipline  ;  and,  in  these  respects, 
is  free  from  those  errors  and  corruptions  which  render  other  churches 
impure.  A  true  church,  is  one  that  adheres  to  Jesus  Christ  as  her 
foundation ;  but  even  such  a  church  may  build  so  much  hay  and  stub- 
ble upon  the  foundation ;  and  may  become  so  impure  and  corrupt  in 
doctrine,  worship,  and  government,  that  it  may  be  warrantable  and 
necessary  to  withdraw  from  her  communion. 

The  church  of  England  holds  the  truth  in  her  doctrinal  articles ; 
yet,  her  corruptions  in  worship,  discipline  and  government,  and  her 
refusing  to  give  any  faithful  testimony  against  the  many  gross  errors 
which  have  been  taught  by  her  members,  and  which  are  directly  con- 
trary to  her  own  articles,  sufficiently  warrant  the  secession  of  the  dis- 
senters in  England  and  Ireland  from  her  communion.  So  the  churches, 
you  allude  to,  may  be  true  churches  of  Christ ;  and  yet,  in  some  of 
them,  obstinate  attachment  to  error,  and  continued  defection  fi'om  the 
reformation  formerly  attained,  may  render  a  separate  communion  neces- 
sary for  the  due  maintainance  of  a  testimony  for  truth. 

These  churches  are,  in  fact,  separated  from  one  another ;  and  any 
one  of  them,  on  whose  part  the  separation  is  just  and  necessary,  can- 
not, consistently  with  faithfulness,  return  to  sacramental  communion 
with  them,  whose  defections  caused  the  separation,  till  they  return  to 
an  acknowledgment  of  the  truth. 

§  16.  Alex.  It  cannot  be  denied,  that  God  holds  communion  with 
these  churches  ;  and  therefore,  we  may  hold  sacramental  communion 
with  them. 

KuF.  The  consequence  may  be  justly  denied,  for  the  reason  given 
by  a  judicioos  writer.  Our  Presbyterian  or  reformed  divines,  says  he, 
are  all  very  cautious  in  determining  what  length  a  church  may  go  in 
defection  or  corruption,  before  communion  is  wholly  cut  oif  between 
the  Head  and  all  the  members  thereof.  Though  corruption  and  super- 
stition can  never  have  the  approbation  and  countenance  of  Heaven ;  will 
it  therefore  follow,  that  when  we  depart  from  communion  with  a  particu- 
lar visible  church,  on  account  of  her  corruptions,  Christ,  the  Head  of  the 


54  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

church,  is  to  be  blamed,  if  he,  in  his  adorable  sovereignty,  communi- 
cate his  grace  even  to  those  who  remain  in  communion  with  that 
church,  however  corrupt  and  degenerate  ?  The  sovereignty  of  grace 
may  be  glorified  amongst  those,  with  whom  it  is  not  safe  nor  waiTanta- 
ble  for  us  to  hold  communion,  as  members  of  the  same  ecclesiastical 
body.  The  hidden  and  secret  communications  of  the  grace  of  the 
Kedeemer,  are  not  the  standard  or  rule  of  our  duty.* 

Alex.  Your  author  is  chargeable  with  confusion  ;  for  he  does  not 
distinguish  between  secret  and  pubKc  communion.  No  intelligent 
christian  will  admit,  that  things,  which  are  absolutely  secret  between 
God  and  the  soul,  can  be  a  rule  of  proceeding  to  his  church.  But  the 
visible  and  public  communion,  which  God  holds  with  a  church,  or  with 
her  members,  is  such  a  rule.f 

RuF.  You  agree  with  the  author,  then,  that  the  secret  communica- 
tions of  the  Redeemer's  grace,  are  not  the  rule  of  our  duty  in  the  mat- 
ter of  church  communion.  The  communion  of  God  with  his  o\^m  peo- 
ple, is  in  the  nature  of  it  secret ;  as  it  consists  in  the  communications 
of  his  saving  grace  to  them,  and  the  returns  of  their  faith  and  love  to 
him.  Every  person  in  a  state  of  grace,  in  some  measure,  enjoys  this 
communion. 

Hence,  it  is  evident,  that  the  objection  which  the  author  answers  in 
the  passage  now  recited,  relates  to  the  secret  communion  of  Christ 
with  his  people  ;  and  is  much  the  same  with  saying,  that  the  public 
corruptions  of  a  particular  church,  will  not  warrant  us  to  withdraw 
from  her  communion,  while  we  have  any  ground  for  a  judgment  of 
charity,  that  there  are  any  real  christians  in  her  communion.  To  this 
objection,  the  author  sufficiently  answers,  that  there  are  cases,  in  which 
we  ought  to  decline  having  church  communion  with  such  as  we  chari- 
tably judge  have  communion  with  Christ ;  because  our  communion 
vrith  them,  would  be  a  conniving  at,  and  partaking  of  the  sins  of  their 
public  profession.  But  his  secret  communion  with  them,  is  of  a  differ- 
ent kind,  and  infinitely  far  from  being  liable  to  such  an  imputation. 
As  this  is  not  denied,  so  the  propriety  of  the  author's  observation,  con- 
sidered as  an  answer  to  the  objection  now  mentioned,  seems  evident. 
But  you  say,  the  question  is  about  visible  and  public  communion. 
What  do  you  mean  by  the  public  communion  which  God  holds  with 
the  members  of  a  church  ? 

Alex.  It  is  visible  Christianity  ;  that  is,  such  a  profession  and  walk, 
as  we  have  a  right  to  expect  from  the  disciples  of  Christ ;  which  pro- 
fession and  walk,  considered  as  the  external  effect  and  indication  of 
their  communion  with  God,  are  a  sufficient  reason  for  our  communion 
with  them,  in  those  ordinances  which  are  appointed  expressly  for  their 
benefit. 

RuF.  We  should  guard  against  wandering  from  the  question  in  de- 

*  Wilson's  Defense  of  Reformation  Principles,  page  70.    +Plea,  &c.  page  312. 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  55 

bate,  by  altering  the  terms  of  it.  It  is  one  thing  to  say,  that  we  may 
warrantably  have  sacramental  communion  with  all  those  with  whom 
God  has  communion.  It  is  another  thing  to  say,  that  we  may  war- 
rantably  have  communion  with  all  those,  whose  profession  and  walk 
are  such  as  we  have  a  right  to  expect  in  the  disciples  of  Christ.  I 
allow  the  latter  proposition  to  be  most  true  ;  and  a  rule  of  church  com- 
muion,  according  to  the  scripture.  But  the  former,  which  means,  as 
I  have  already  observed,  that  we  are,  in  all  cases,  to  hold  sacramental 
communion  with  all  those  that  have,  or  that  can  be  charitably  judged 
to  have,  real  or  secret  communion  with  God,  is  manifestly  false. 

Alex.  Why  do  you  deny  communion  with  God  to  be  the  rule  of 
sacramental  communion ;  and  yet,  allow  a  profession  and  walk  be- 
coming the  gospel,  which  are  the  effect  and  indication  of  that  commu- 
nion, to  be  so. 

RuF.  Because  people's  profession  and  external  walk  becoming  the 
gospel,  may  well  be  admitted  as  a  warrant  for  sacramental  communion; 
as  they  may  be  certainly  known,  like  any  other  matters  of  fact.  But 
it  cannot  be  certainly  known,  who  they  are,  with  whom  God,  in  the 
sovereignty  of  his  grace,  holds  real  and  spiritual  communion.  Many, 
whose  profession  and  external  conduct,  are  such  as  warrant  us  to  have 
sacramental  communion  with  them,  neither  have,  nor  ever  had,  any 
real  communion  with  God.  They  have  eaten  and  drunk  in  Christ's 
presence,  and  agreeable  to  the  external  order  of  his  house ;  and  yet, 
have  had  no  real  communion  with  him.  On  the  other  hand,  God,  in 
his  sovereign  way  of  dealing  with  his  own  people,  with  whom  he  never 
fails  to  hold  communion,  may  leave  them  to  fall  into  such  open  offen- 
ses and  backsliding,  as  may  render  a  due  acknowledgment  of  them 
necessary,  before  we  can  regularly  have  sacramental  communion  with 
them. 

We  have  no  reason  to  doubt,  that  Miriam  was  a  saint;  nor  can  we 
say  that  her  sin,  in  speaking  against  Moses,  excluded  her  altogether 
from  real  communion  with  her  God  ;  and  yet  that  sin  caused  her,  by 
his  command,  to  be  for  a  time,  shut  out  of  the  camp  of  Israel.  It  ia 
evident,  therefore,  that  the  having  or  wanting  real  communion  with 
God,  cannot  be  a  rule  to  direct  us,  with  whom  we  ought,  or  ought  not, 
to  have  sacramental  communion. 

Men's  scriptural  profession  and  practice,  as  they  come  under  our 
notice,  (and  they  can  be  a  rule  to  us  no  otherwise,)  are  a  warrant  for 
our  sacramental  communion  with  them  ;  but  are  not  infallible  evidences 
of  their  real  communion  with  God-.  We  allow,  that  such  a  profes- 
sion and  walk,  belong  to  real  communion  with  God,  as  common  honesty 
in  our  civii  dealings  also  does  :  but  if  ministers  teach  people,  that 
these  things  are  that  communion  itself,  or  even  that  they  are,  without 
anything  more,  certain  evidences  of  it,  they  teach  people  to  deceive 
themselves. 

Alex.   ' '  That  which  we  have  seen  and  heard, "  says  John  the  beloved, 


56  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

"  declare  we  unto  you,  that  ye  may  also  have  fellowship  with  us  :  and 
truly,  our  fellowship  is  with  the  Father,  and  with  his  son  Jesus  Christ." 
This  text,  proposes  our  communion  with  God,  as  a  sufficient  reason 
for  inviting  others  to  have  communion  with  us  ;  and  therefore,  we  may 
infer  that  his  communion  with  others,  is  a  sufficient  reason  for  our 
communion  with  them.  If  this  invitation  is  to  believers,  the  apostle 
is  to  be  considered  as  saying,  we  invite  you  to  communion  with  us  on 
this  principle  ;  that  we,  as  well  as  you,  have  communion  with  God.  If 
the  invitation  is  to  unbelievers,  he  is  to  be  considered  as  saying,  come 
and  be  sharers  by  faith  in  that  communion  with  us,  which  flows  from 
communion  with  God. 

Supposing,  then,  that  the  persons  invited,  became  believers,  and  had 
communion  with  God  ;  would  it  not  have  been  singularly  inconsistent, 
for  the  apostle  to  have  said  to  them  :  Communion  with  God,  is  not  a 
sufficient  warrant  for  communion  with  us  !  * 

RuF.  The  esteem  and  cultivation  of  communion  with  God,  ought  not 
to  be  represented,  as  superseding  the  necessity  of  observing  the  order, 
that  Christ  has  appointed  to  be  observed  in  the  church.  The  apostle 
never  meant  to  tell  any  person,  that  it  mattered  not  how  much  he  dis- 
regarded this  or  the  other  divine  command  ;  it  would  be  no  bar  to  their 
communion  with  him,  provided  he  had  communion  with  God  :  this 
communion  being  the  sole  requisite.  As  this  supposition  is  absurd  in 
itself,  so  it  is  peculiarly  opposite  to  the  scope  of  this  epistle  ;  which  is 
to  show  the  vanity  of  men's  pretensions  to  communion  with  God,  with- 
out a  habitual  and  prevailing  respect  to  all  his  commandments.  AVith 
regard  to  the  text  now  quoted,  the  apostle  speaks  of  that  spiritual  com- 
munion with  the  saints,  which  is  the  privilege  of  all  believers.  Now, 
though  persons  have  access  to  this  communion  in  general  by  faith  only ; 
yet,  this  is  nothing,  against  holding  that  there  are  external  signs  of 
this  spiritual  communion,  of  which,  even  those  who  have  already  be- 
lieved through  grace,  are  not  to  partake,  without  observing  a  certain 
order  which  God  has  appointed.  Thus  a  believer,  who  has  habitual 
communion  with  God,  ought  not  to  approach  the  Lord's  table,  without 
an  exercise  of  self-examination  ;  nor,  if  he  has  given  public  offense, 
without  acknowledging  that  offense,  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  church 
of  God.  Besides,  so  far  as  the  words  of  the  apostle  here  are  applicable 
to  sacramental  communion,  they  are  to  be  considered  as  a  commen- 
dation of  that  communion,  and  a  grand  motive  to  it ;  namely,  That 
the  believing  partakers  of  it,  had  true  fellowship  with  the  Father,  and 
with  his  son  Jesus  Christ ;  the  apostle  and  others  attesting  their  ex- 
perience of  this  fellowship,  and  inviting  others  to  a  participation  of  the 
same  privilege.  But  this  is  very  different  from  a  particular  descrip- 
tion of  the  due  order,  according  to  which  persons  ought  to  approach, 
or  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  table.     To  give  an  account  of  this  order, 

*Plea,  &c.,  pages  312,  313. 


ALEXANDER  AND   RUFUS.  57 

is  not  the  apostle's  design  here  :  and  it  is  evidently  one  thing  to  say, 
that  the  excellence  of  the  communion  to  be  enjoyed  at  the  Lord's  table, 
should  induce  persons  to  come  to  it ;  and  it  is  another  thing  to  say, 
how  or  when  they  should  do  so. 

Alex.  The  apostle  Paul  lays  upon  christians  the  injunction,  in  Rom. 
XV.  1,  ''  Receive  ye  one  another,  as  Christ  also  received  us,  to  the  glory 
of  God."  This  injunction  has,  for  its  immediate  object,  the  repression 
of  those  jealousies,  alienations,  and  divisions,  which  had  originated 
from  the  dispute  about  meats  and  days,  in  the  church  of  Rome.  But 
the  rule  is  general,  and  determines  that  matters  which  destroy  not 
communion  with  Christ,  are  not  to  destroy  the  communion  of  chris- 
tians :  and  that,  when  one  christian  or  party  of  christians,  sees  the 
tokens  of  Christ's  approbation  and  presence  with  another,  it  is  their 
duty  to  reciprocate  all  the  offices  of  christian  love,  after  the  example 
of  Christ's  kindness  to  them  both.  This,  imports  a  command  to  hold 
communion,  church  communion,  with  all  who  give  evidence  of  being 
in  communion  with  Christ.* 

RuF.  There  is  nothing  in  the  scope  or  connection  of  the  passage,  in 
which  the  apostle  Paul  uses  the  words  you  have  quoted,  that  serves  to 
support  the  scheme  of  sacramental  communion,  among  those  who  hold 
different  and  opposite  professions  of  religion.  The  profession  of  the 
church  at  Rome,  was  then  no  other,  than  that  of  adherence  to  all  the 
doctrine  taught,  and  all  the  duty  enjoined  by  the  apostles.  None  of 
those,  who  are  here  directed  to  receive  one  another,  had  rejected  any 
part  of  that  profession  ;  their  differences  related  to  private  opinions 
about  meats  and  days  ;  the  observation  of  which,  though  not  necessary, 
was  not  sinful.  Their  disputes  did  not,  like  those  of  the  different  de- 
nominations among  us,  respect  any  part  of  the  public  profession,  the 
public  worship  or  government  of  the  church  of  Christ  at  Rome.  None 
of  the  parties,  which  the  apostle  here  deals  with,  were  chargeable  with 
corrupting  the  word  of  God  ;  with  preaching  another  gospel,  than  that 
which  the  apostles  preached  ;  with  changing  Divine  ordinances  ;  or 
with  introducing  any  human  invention  into  their  public  worship  ;  or 
with  drawing  back  from  the  scriptural  matter  or  manner  of  the  profes- 
sion, which  that  church,  in  her  public  capacity,  had  attained.  Thus, 
there  can  be  no  just  reasoning  from  the  sacramental  communion  of 
these  parties  in  Rome,  to  that  of  the  different  denominations  among 
us.  Farther,  the  receiving  of  another,  to  which  the  apostle  exhorted 
the  Romans,  was  in  order  to  their  joining  in  the  same  confession  of 
faith,  in  the  same  ordinances  of  worship,  in  the  obversation  of  the  same 
rules  of  church  order,  delivered  by  the  apostles ;  for  nothing  less  can 
be  meant  by  their  glorifying  God  with  one  mind  and  one  mouth  ;  and 
by  their  walking  together  in  such  a  fellowship  of  the  gospel,  as  excluded 
division  and  doubtful  disputation.     But  the  celebrated  scheme  of  ca- 

*  Plea,  &c.,  page  311 


58  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

tholic  communion,  or  rather  catholic  confession,  allows  diversity  of 
minds  and  mouths  among  partakers  of  the  same  sacramental  table ; 
even  in  respect  of  the  public  profession  of  their  faith  ;  a  diversity  which 
manifestly  tends  to  the  murmurings  and  disputings,  which  the  apostle 
prohibits  among  the  partakers  of  the  same  communion,  Philip,  ii.  14 ; 
and  which  it  is  the  design  of  the  passage  under  consideration,  to  repress 
among  the  believing  Romans.  It  is  evident,  then,  that  the  persons* 
to  whom  this  exhortation  w^s  first  given,  were  members  of  the  same 
particular  church,  and  chargeable  with  nothing  that  exposed  them  to 
church  censure ;  and  therefore  their  receiving  one  another  cannot  be 
considered  as  parallel  to  the  sacramental  communion  which  persons 
hold  with  one  another,  who  are  members  of  different  particular  churches; 
and  who,  on  account  of  the  erroneous  profession  of  one  or  other  of 
these  churches,  ought  to  be  censured  for  their  avowed  opinions  or  prac- 
tices. Your  observation,  that  matters  which  destroy  not  communion 
with  Christ,  are  not  to  destroy  the  communion  of  christians,  is  true  in 
respect  of  their  state  of  communion  with  one  another  as  they  are  mem- 
bers of  one  mystical  body  in  Christ ;  and,  in  respect  of  the  mutual 
benefit  of  their  faith  and  of  the  exercise  of  love  to  one  another  express- 
ed in  prayer  and  charitable  communications.  But,  as  applied  to  sacra- 
mental communion,  it  is  very  extravagant.  When  persons  are  really 
united  to  Christ,  we  are  sure,  that  no  temptations  of  Satan  or  the 
world ;  no  prevalence  of  in-dwelling  sin,  can  destroy  their  communion 
with  him.  But  with  regard  to  scandalous  offenses,  into  which  real 
saints  may  fall,  though  they  cannot  cut  them  off  from  communion  with 
Christ,  and  ought  not  to  hinder  the  exercise  of  love  now  mentioned  ; 
yet  they  render  them  liable  to  the  censures  of  the  church,  and  to  sus- 
pension from  sacramental  communion.  For,  in  the  case  of  any  scan- 
dal, the  church  has  no  power  of  censuring  at  all,  if  she  has  not  a  power 
of  suspending  from  sealing  ordinances,  while  the  scandal  is  persisted 
in.  The  ground,  as  we  have  already  seen,  on  which  church  censure 
proceeds,  is  not  the  want  of  a  saving  interest  in  Christ,  or  the  want  of 
communion  with  him,  but  a  specific  charge  of  some  offense. 

Alex.  Still  you  overlook  the  words  of  the  text,  which  import,  that 
we  should  receive  to  our  communion  all  those  whom  Christ  receives. 

Rup.  It  sufficiently  appears  by  the  view,  that  has  now  been  taken  of 
this  passage,  that  we  must  limit  the  receiving  of  one  another,  which 
the  apostle  speaks  of,  to  the  communion  of  persons  in  the  same  church, 
making  the  same  profession  of  the  faith  ;  and  therefore  it  cannot  be 
brought  to  warrant  the  sacramental  communion  of  the  members  of  dif- 
ferent particular  churches,  making  different  and  contradictory  profes- 
sions of  religion.  But  with  regard  to  the  words,  "  as  Christ  hath  re- 
ceived us,"  it  may  be  observed,  that  the  apostle  does  not  here  direct 
christians  to  judge  concerning  Christ's  receiving  others  ;  but  to  con- 
sider how  he  had  received  themselves.  He  does  not  say,  you  ought 
to  receive  others,  as  Christ  has  received  them  ;  but  receive  one  another 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  59 

as  Christ  has  received  us.  It  is  to  the  same  purpose  as  if  the  apostle 
had  said  :  Let  each  of  you  remember  the  tenderness  and  condescen- 
sion which  Christ  manifested  in  receiving  you  ;  and  let  his  manner  be 
your  pattern  in  receiving  one  another.  Thus,  the  apostle  does  not 
say,  that  the  fact  of  Christ's  having  received  persons,  in  all  cases,  war- 
rants our  receiving  them  to  sacramental  communion  ;  but  he  exhorts 
us  to  show  our  gratitude  and  thankfulness  to  him,'  who  received  us  so 
graciously,  by  kindly  receiving  one  another. 

Though  the  negative  proposition  were  granted,  that  we  ought  not  to 
maintain  church  communion  with  any,  whom,  in  the  judgment  of 
charity,  we  cannot  think  our  Lord  has  received ;  yet  the  positive  asser- 
tion would  not  necessarily  follow,  that,  in  all  cases,  we  are  to  join  in 
sacramental  communion  with  those  whom  we  charitably  think  Christ 
has  received  ;  just  as,  from  the  truth  of  the  negative  proposition,  that 
persons  ought  not  to  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  supper  without  a  com- 
petent measure  of  knowledge,  we  cannot  conclude  that  all  who  have 
such  knowledge  ought  to  be  admitted  to  that  privilege  ;  because,  other 
qualifications  also  are  nececsary.  After  all,  did  Christ  ever  tell  any, 
that  there  are  some  things,  which  he  has  taught  or  commanded  in  his 
word,  of  so  little  consequence,  that  the  public  denial,  or  contempt  of 
them,  is  not  to  be  considered  either  as  a  hindrance  to  his  people's  en- 
joyment of  communion  with  himself,  or  as  any  bar  to  their  sacramental 
communion  with  one  another  ?  Or  did  he  ever  say  to  the  office-bearers 
of  the  church  :  As  in  the  communion  which  I  vouchsafed  to  you,  I  al- 
lowed you  to  disregard  some  of  my  doctrines  and  commands  of  less 
importance  ;  so  you  must  give  the  same  allowance  to  those,  whom  you 
admit  to  sacramental  communion  ?  Let  sufficient  evidence  be  pro- 
duced, that  Christ  has  ever  said  so  to  any  ;  and  I  shall  offer  no  more 
objections  to  your  scheme  of  cathohc  communion.  I  think,  he  speaks 
the  reverse  to  those  whom  he  admits  to  communion  with  himself  "  A 
man,"  says  he,  '*'  who  is  my  friend,  or  a  lover  of  me,  is  a  keeper  of  my 
words,"  without  any  exception,  "  a  doer  of  whatsoever  I  command 
him,''  John  xiv.  23,  xv.  14. 

§  17.  Alex  The  church  of  Christ  is  one.  Every  member  of  this 
body  has,  by  a  Divine  constitution,  both  union  and  communion  with 
every  other  member  :  they  are  united  together  as  parts  of  a  whole,  and 
sympathize  with  each  other  accordingly.  The  members  of  the  body 
of  Christ  have  a  common  and  unalterable  interest  in  all  the  provision, 
which  God  has  made  for  its  nourishment ;  and  that  simply  and  abso- 
lutely, because  they  are  members  of  that  body.  The, members  of  the 
church  of  Christ,  as  such,  are  under  the  obligation  of  God's  authority 
to  recognise  each  other's  character  and  privileges,  and  consequently 
not  to  deny  the  tokens  of  such  recognition.  Sacramental  communion 
is  one  of  those  tokens ;  and  therefore  the  members  of  the  church  of 
(Jhrist,  as  such,  are  under  the  obligation  of  God's  authority  to  recog- 
nize their  relation  to  Christ  and  to  each  other,  by  joining  together  in 


60  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

sacramental  communion.  Nor  has  any  church  upon  earth  the  power 
to  refuse  a  seat  at  the  Lord's  table  to  one,  whose  conversation  is  such 
as  becomes  the  gospel.* 

RuF.  I  admit  all  this  :  but  cannot  see  how  it  serves  in  the  least,  to 
justify  your  scheme.  The  church  of  Christ  is  one  :  considered  as  in- 
visible, her  unity  lies  in  her  having  one  Head  ;  and  in  the  in-dwelling 
of  one  Spirit  in  him  and  in  all  her  members  ;  considered  as  visible,  her 
unity  lies  in  her  acknowledgment  of  the  same  Head  ;  and  in  the  con- 
formity of  her  profession  and  practice  to  the  truths  and  institutions, 
which  he  has  delivered  in  his  word.  Errors  and  corruptions,  openly 
persisted  in,  against  the  public  profession  of  any  particular  church,  are 
contrary  to  this  visible  unity  of  the  church  of  Christ ;  and  therefore 
they  ought  not  to  be  tolerated  in  her  communion. 

True  believers  are  members  of  the  church  invisible ;  and,  as  such, 
are  liable  to  God's  fatherly  chastisements  for  their  iniquities :  and,  as 
members  of  the  visible  church,  they  may  be  liable  to  her  censure,  for 
their  public  offenses,  as  well  as  others.  Every  error  or  corruption,  in 
opposition  to  the  reformation  already  attained  by  the  church  of  Christ, 
is  such  an  offense  :  it  is  a  deviation  from  a  conversation  becoming  the 
gospel.  While  any  person  openly  and  obstinately  adheres  to  such  a 
deviation,  he  cannot  regularly  sit  down  at  the  Lord's  table  with  a 
church  whose  profession  or  testimony  expressly  condemns  it.  In  this 
case,  the  church  is  far  from  denying  his  unalienable  interest  in  the 
provisions  of  Christ's  house :  but  so  far  as  these  provisions  are  to  be 
dealt  out  by  stewards,  his  people  may  expect  to  receive  them  no  other- 
wise, than  according  to  the  order  which  he  has  appointed  to  be  observ- 
ed in  the  distribution  of  them :  an  order,  which  requires,  that  the 
Lord's  supper  should  not  be  dispensed  to  any  till  they  profess  their 
adherence  to  the  confession  or  testimony  of  the  church  of  Christ ; 
while  nothing  is  found  in  that  confession  or  testimony,  but  what  is 
consonant  to  his  word. 

Nor  is  it  denied^  that  the  members  of  the  church  of  Christ,  as  such, 
are  under  the  obligation  of  God's  authority  to  recognise  each  other's 
character  and  privileges,  and  to  act  towards  one  another  accordingly. 
But  this  recognising  includes,  not  only  |a  judgment  of  charity  con- 
cerning the  gracious  state  of  a  church  member,  but  also,  a  distinct 
knowledge  of  the  conformity  of  his  present  profession  and  practice  to 
the  word  of  God.  According  to  this  recognising,  the  sacred  symbols 
are  to  be  given  to  the  professed  friends  of  all  the  truths  and  institu- 
tions of  Christ ;  nor  can  we  give  them  to  any  other  without  being 
chargeable  with  unfaithfulness  to  the  Master  of  the  feast. 

Alex.  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  gave  all  church  privileges  to  his 
church  catholic ;  and  from  this  catholic  grant  do  all  particular  church- 
es derive  their  right  to  whatever  privileges  they  enjoy.     The  mem- 

*  Plea,  &c.,  pages  15, 16. 


ALEXANDER   AND    RUFUS.  61 

bers  of  all  the  true  churches  have,  therefore,  the  very  same  right  to 
the  Lord's  table.  By  what  authority,  then,  does  any  particular 
church  refuse  to  admit  christians,  from  other  particular  churches,  to 
the  sacramental  table  ?  It  may  be  said  to  a  church,  chargeable  with 
such  refusal,  it  is  the  Lord's  table,  not  yours.* 

RuF.  The  right  of  all,  that  belongs  to  the  catholic  visible  church,  is 
not  disputed.  But  when  a  particular  church,  endeavoring  to  adhere 
faithfully  to  a  pure  profession  of  Divine  truths,  refuses  to  admit  the 
openly  erroneous  and  corrupt,  whether  they  be  usual  members  of  that 
church  or  not,  to  the  sacramental  table,  what  she  refuses  such  persons, 
is  not  the  regular  use  of  enjoyment  of  their  right,  but  only  the  abuse 
of  it ;  for  men  are  chargeable  with  such  abuse,  whenever  they  depart 
from  the  order,  that  Christ  has  appointed  in  the  participation  of  his 
ordinances.  We  disapprove  of  communicating  with  other  churches, 
not  because  they  are  other  churches  :  but,  because  they  are  erroneous 
and  corrupt :  and,  if  we  refuse  to  admit  their  members  to  communi- 
cate with  us ;  it  is  because  they  avow  their  obstinate  attachment  to 
the  errors  aud  corruptions  of  these  churches.  It  is  the  very  reason 
why  we  dare  not  admit  them,  that  the  table  is  not  ours,  but  the  Lord's, 
It  is  his  table  ;  and  therefore  the  order  appointed  in  his  word,  ought 
to  be  strictly  observed  :  no  open  and  obstinate  opposer  of  any  of  his 
truths  or  institutions,  acknowledged  in  the  confession  of  the  church, 
in  which  this  ordinance  is  dispensed,  can  be  regularly  or  honestly  ad- 
mitted to  it  by  the  office-bearers  of  that  church. 

§  18.  Alex.  Let  us  place  the  subject  in  another  light.  It  is,  oris 
it  not,  the  duty  of  christians,  in  all  true  churches,  to  show  forth  the 
Lord's  death  in  the  sacrament  of  the  supper  ?  If  it  is  not,  then  we  have 
true  churches  and  christians,  under  no  obligation  to  observe  the  most 
characteristic  and  discriminating  of  the  christian  ordinances.  Here 
is  a  contradiction  nearly  in  terms.  For  who  can  acknowledge  a  true 
church  without  sacraments  ?  If  it  is,  it  would  be  a  great  corruption,  a 
grievous  sin  in  those  churches,  to  expel  or  neglect  their  sacraments ; 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  in  celebrating  the  sacraments,  do  they  not  per- 
form an  acceptable  service  to  God  ?  f 

RuF.  We  are  to  distinguish  between  the  validity  of  an  ordinance, 
and  the  regular  manner  of  performing  it.  It  is  granted,  that  it  is  the 
duty  of  true  churches,  however  corrupt,  to  show  forth  the  Lord's  death 
in  the  sacrament  of  the  supper  ;  and  that  so  far  as  the  participation  of 
this  ordinance  is  in  faith,  so  far  it  is  an  acceptable  service  to  God;  and 
yet  the  manner  of  performing  this  duty  may  be,  in  a  great  measure, 
irregular  and  sinful.  Thus,  Jacob's  application  to  his  father  Isaac  for 
the  blessing  was  successful ;  and  from  Jacob's  general  character  as  a 
believer,  and  from  his  esteem  of  the  birth-right  and  the  blessing,  it 
appears  that  his  application  for  the  blessing,  absolutely  considered, 

*  Plea,  &c.  pages  18, 19.  Id.  page  30. 


62  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

was  accepted  of  God  ;  through  the  manner  of  his  application,  by  lying 
and  deceiving  his  father,  was  criminal.  We  allow,  that  it  is  the  duty 
of  Episcopal  and  Independent  churches  to  ordain  ministers  ;  and  that 
their  ordination  is  valid  ;  so  that  we  do  not  re-ordain  ministers,  who 
join  with  us  after  having  received  the  ordination  of  those  churches. 
Yet,  we  justly  consider  the  manner  of  their  ordination  so  irregular  and 
unscriptural,  that  we  could  not  warrantably  consent  to  the  ordination 
of  a  minister  in  either  of  these  ways.  So  we  allow  a  marriage  to  be 
valid,  however  irregular  the  manner  of  it  may  have  been  ;  and  however 
sinful  it  would  have  been  for  us  to  have  concurred  with  or  counte- 
nanced it. 

Hence,  though  we  lament,  that  there  is  much  sin  in  the  manner  of 
celebrating  the  Lord's  supper  in  corrupt  churches  ;  yet  we  hold,  that 
their  neglecting  to  celebrate  that  precious  ordinance  would  be  far 
more  sinful.  The  sinful  defect  in  the  manner  of  performing  a  duty  is 
one  evil ;  and  the  utter  neglect  of  it  is  another.  It  must  be  very  ab- 
surd for  any  one  to  think  of  lessening  the  former,  by  running  into  the 
latter,  which  is  still  more  grossly  criminal. 

Alex.  How  should  an  act  of  communion  in  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  be  lawful  and  commanded  to  a  person  in  one  true  church  ;  and 
be  unlawful  and  forbidden  to  the  same  person  by  another  ?  How 
should  two  persons  both  honor  the  Redeemer  by  communicating  in 
their  respective  churches,  and  both  dishonor  him,  by  the  very  same 
thing,  if  they  should  happen  to  exchange  places  ?* 

RuF.  It  is  certain,  that  the  same  action,  as  to  the  matter  of  it,  which 
in  some  circumstances  is  morally  evil,  may,  in  other  circumstances,  be 
less  evil,  or  even  morally  good.  Thus,  the  assistance  we  give  our 
neighbor  in  his  worldly  employment,  which  would  be  morally  evil  on 
the  Lord's  day^  may  be  morally  good  on  any  other  day  of  the  week. 
In  the  present  case,  since  the  act  of  communicating  with  any  particu- 
lar church  necessarily  implies,  as  was  formerly  shown,  a  public  agree- 
ment with  the  particular  profession  made  by  that  church,  of  the  chris- 
tian religion  ;  it  is  evident,  that  the  act  of  communicating  in  a  church, 
whose  profession  is  unfaithful  or  corrupt^  must  involve  a  person  in  the 
sinfulness  of  that  profession,  which  he  would  not  be  involved  in  by  the 
same  act  in  a  church  that  makes  a  purer  profession. 

§  19.  Alex.  Why  do  you  demand  more,  than  the  evidence  of 
christian  character  as  a  qualification  for  communion  with  you  ?f 

RuF.  We  should  not  attempt  to  impose  on  one  another  by  ambiguous 
expressions.  If,  by  christian  character,  you  mean  a  person's  profes- 
sion of  so  much  of  Christianity  as  he  or  others  judge  to  be  necessary  to 
salvation,  or  what  you  call  the  essentials  of  religion,  the  reason  has 
been  already  given  why  such  a  defective  profession  cannot  warrant 
sacramental  communion.     But,  if  by  christian  character  you  mean  a 

*  Plea,  &c.,  pages  20,  21.  +  Id.  page  21. 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  63 

person's  credible  profession  of  adhering  to  the  whole  of  the  christian 
religion  in  principle  and  practice,  I  never  said  or  thought,  that  more 
than  the  character  of  a  christian,  in  that  sense,  should  be  required  of 
any  in  order  to  sacramental  communion.  But  this  can  never  be  re- 
conciled to  the  scheme  of  sacramental  communion  with  churches  and 
their  members  ;  whose  peculiar  communion,  (considered  not  absolute- 
ly, but  as  distinct  from,  and  opposite  to  that  of  other  churches ;)  has 
no  other  basis  than  a  pertinacious  denial  of  one  or  other  of  the  truths 
or  duties  of  God's  word,  acknowledged  in  the  profession  of  some  other 
church  or  churches. 

Alex  All  believers  having  the  thing  signified,  being  partakers  of 
'  Christ  and  his  benefits,  have  a  perfect  right  to  the  sacramental  sign  ; 
they  have  an  interest  in  Christ,  and  therefore  are  the  proper  recipi- 
ents of  those  ordinances,  the  use  of  which  is  to  confirm  that  interest  to 
their  faith.  All  believers  are  engaged  in  the  service  of  Christ,  and 
should  partake  of  the  Lord's  supper,  as  a  sign  of  their  engagement.* 
RuF.  This  has  been  repeatedly  answered  already.  It  is  the  duty  of 
all  christians  to  come  to  the  Lord's  table :  but  they  should  come  ac- 
cording to  the  due  order.  They  are  first  to  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ :  they  are  then  to  examine  themselves  ;  they  are  to  make  a  pro- 
fession of  their  faith  in  Christ,  and  of  their  purpose  of  obedience  to  all 
his  commands  ;  and,  if  they  have  offended  the  church  of  Christ  by  pub- 
lic errors  in  principle  or  practice,  they  ought  publicly  to  renounce 
them  ;  the  office-bearers  in  the  church,  who  would  be  faithful  to  their 
trust,  will  by  no  means  admit  to  sacramental  communion  those  who 
openly  refuse  to  co  jply  with  any  paH  of  this  order.  The  truth  is,  be- 
lievers, so  far  as  grace  is  in  exercise,  will  not  desire  to  come  forward 
in  any  other  way.  It  is  in  the  Lord's  own  way,  that  they  look  for 
comfortable  communion  with  himself. 

In  the  sacraments,  as  the  Lord  Christ  gives  himself  to  them,  so  they 
give  themselves  to  him,  and  to  his  service,  according  to  his  word. 
Rut  how  inconsistent  is  this  with  the  scheme  of  joining  in  sacramental 
communion  with  those  churches  which,  we  own,  have,  by  their  public 
profession,  rejected,  and  continue  to  reject,  some  of  the  truths  or  insti- 
tutions of  Jesus  Christ,  which  all  his  servants  ought  to  receive  and 
maintain. 

Alex.  The  participation  of  the  Lord's  supper  serves,  as  a  badge,  to 
distinguish  the  church  from  the  world,  the  follower  from  the  foe  of 
Jesus  i  hrist :  but  you  make  it  a  badge  to  distinguish  the  church  from 
the  church,  the  follower  from  the  follower,  the  friend  from  the  friend 
of  Christ  Jesus,  f 

RuF.  The  sa(iraments,  as  we  have  already  seen,  are  to  be  adminis- 
tered to  none,  otherwise  than  according  to  the  discipline  of  the  church. 
But,  by  that  holy  discipline;  a  pure  church  is  to  be  distinguished  not 

*  Plea,  &c.,  pages  23,  23.  t  Id.  page  23. 


64  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

only  from  the  world,  but  from  corrupt  and  degenerate  churches ;  and 
the  more  faithful  friends  and  followers  of  Christ  from  those,  that,  in 
any  part  of  their  profession,  are  openly  unfaithful.  We  must  either 
allow  this,  or  deny  that  there  is  any  warrantable  secession  from  what 
may  be  called  a  church,  however  corrupt  or  degenerate  ;  or  any  war- 
rantable exercise  of  discipline,  but  upon  infidels  or  the  openly  profane  ; 
that  is,  upon  such  as  are  without  the  church,  and  not  under  her  juris- 
diction at  all.  This  is  very  absurd  ;  for  says  the  apostle,  "  what  have 
I  to  judge,  them  that  are  without  ?  Do  ye  not  judge  them  that  are 
within  ?" 

The  question  which  we  are  no\^  considering  is,  whether  churches 
and  their  members,  that  are  in  a  state  of  warrantable  secession  from  a 
corrupt  church,  may  still  have  sacramental  communion  with  that 
church  on  account  of  the  essentials  of  the  christian  religion,  which  she 
is  supposed  to  retain  ?  This  question  is  quite  different  from  that  about 
the  lawfulness  of  secession :  it  is  a  question  which  supposes  that,  in. 
some  cases,  secession  from  a  corrupt  church  is  warrantable. 

Alex.  They,  who  have  a  right  to  sacrmental  communion  any  where 
have  a  right  to  it  every  where ;  and  conversely,  they  who  have  not  a 
right  to  it  every  where,  have  a  right  to  it  no  where.* 

RuF.  If  you  mean  that  this  right  is  the  same  in  other  churches  that 
differ  in  their  local  situation  only,  your  assertion  is  true  :  but  if  you 
mean  that  this  right  is  the  same  in  churches  that  in  some  articles  of 
religion,  make  different  and  opposite  public  professions,  your  assertion 
must  appear  quite  wrong  and  extravagant  to  any  who  seriously  con- 
sider what,  I  think,  has  been  sufficiently  shwon,  viz :  that  the  public 
profession  of  Christianity,  which  we  make  in  the  act  of  communicating 
with  any  particular  church,  neither  is  nor  can  be  any  other  than  the 
profession  made  by  that  particular  church.  Hence  it  cannot  be  equal- 
ly warrantable  to  communicate  with  a  church,  which  makes  an  unfaith- 
ful profession  of  religion  ;  as  it  is  to  communicate  with  one  whose  pro- 
fession is  faithful :  unless  we  suppose  it  to  be  as  warrantable  to  make 
an  unfaithful  as  it  is  to  make  a  faithful  profession.  A  professor  must 
be  very  like  the  Roman  proconsul  Gallio,  Acts  xviii.  17,  before  he 
can  be  satisfied,  that  he  has  as  good  a  right  to  join  in  sacramental  com- 
munion with  a  backsliding  degenerate  churchy  as  with  a  faithful  reform- 
ing one.  How  little  account  must  such  a  professor  make  of  all  the 
Lord's  work  in  bringing  a  particular  church  to  any  measure  of  purity 
that  she  has  attained  ! 

Alex.  No  qualification  for  sacramental  communion  may,  by  tlie 
law  of  Christ,  be  exacted  from  any  individual,  other  than  visible 
Christianity ;  that  is^  a  profession  and  practice  becoming  the  gospel, 
without  regard  to  those  sectarian  differences,  which  consist  with  the 
substance  of  evangelical  truth,  f 

*  Plea,  &c.  page  24.  t  Id.  page  24. 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  65 

RuF.  When  you  say,  that  the  qualifications  for  sacramental  commu- 
nion are  a  profession  and  practice  becoming  the  gospel,  I  agree  with 
you,  that  nothing  more  is  requisite;  supposing,  however,  that  the  pro- 
fession of  the  truth  is  full,  no  part  of  the  testimony  of  Jesus  being  de- 
signedly omitted ;  particular,  in  direct  opposition  to  the  particular  er- 
rors thai  prevail;  open,  or  avowed  before  the  world  whatever  re- 
proaches or  hardships  it  may  occasion ;  and  that  the  practice  of  him 
who  makes  this  profession  is  comformable  to  it.  A  profession  and 
practice,  in  this  sense,  becoming  the  gospel,  embrace  the  whole  chris- 
tian religion.  But  how  does  this  comport  with  the  scheme  of  holding 
sacramental  communion  with  churches,  in  whose  profession  and  avow- 
ed practice,  we  acknowledge,  there  are  so  many  things  contrary  to  the 
word  of  God,  and  not  becoming  the  gospel,  that  on  account  of  these 
things,  we  justly  refuse  to  become  habitual  members  of  them  ?  But 
what  is  meant  by  sectarian  differences,  which  consist  with  the  sub- 
stance of  evangelical  truth  ?  The  grounds  of  these  differences  either 
are,  or  are  not,  truths  revealed,  and  duties  enjoined  in  the  word  of 
God  If  they  be  such  truths  and  duties,  then  they  are  not  sectarian 
tenets;  they  ought  to  be  held  by  the  whole  catholic  church.  But  if 
they  are  not,  then  they  are  opinions  or  inventions  of  men,  that  ought 
to  have  no  place  in  our  religious  profession  at  all.  Any  part  of  the 
catholic  church,  obstinately  retaining  such  tenets  becomes  thereby  a 
sect.  Such  tenets,  though  they  may  be  held  by  some  who  profess 
much  evangelical  truth,  yet  will  never  agree  with  that  truth;  and  the 
obstinate  maintainers  and  propagators  of  them  ought  to  be  censured 
by  the  catholic  church. 

Besides  the  immense  difference  between  what  is  of  Heaven,  and  what 
is  of  men,  we  are  expressly  forbidden  to  add  any  thing  to  that  relig- 
ion which  God  has  given  us  in  his  word.  Though  a  particular  church 
and  her  members  hold  evangelical  truth;  yet  if  they  add  any  thing  to 
it,  or  take  away  any  thing  from  it,  they  are  still  liable  to  the  censure 
of  the  church  of  Christ. 


66  ALEXANDEE    AND    RUFUS. 


DIALOGUE  lY. 

The  iustances  of  sacramental  communion  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  no  ex- 
amples of  the  catholic  communion  in  question— The  charge  of  unchurching 
other  churches,  and  of  spiritual  pride  on  account  of  our  declining  sacramental 
communion  with  those  from  whom  we  are  in  a  state  of  secession,  shown  to  be 
unjust — Declining  to  attend  on  the  public  administrations  of  ministers  on  ac- 
count of  their  erroneous  profession,  lawful — The  promotion  of  love  to  the 
brethren  by  this  catholic  communion,  considered — Of  the  evils  said  to  arise 
from  our  limiting  sacramental  communion  to  such  as  make  the  same  public 
profession — The  nature  and  tendency  of  this  catholic  communion  inferred 
from  what  has  been  advanced  in  the  preceding  conversations. 

Alexander  and  Rufus,  having  met  one  evening,  their  conversa- 
tion turned  on  the  excellencies  of  the  holy  scriptures ;  particularly, 
on  the  wisdom  and  condescension  manifested  by  their  Divine  Author, 
in  adapting  them  to  the  various  capacities  of  mankind. 

Rue.  This  appears  eminently  in  the  history  of  the  scriptures.  In 
the  preceptive  part,  duties  are  declared  with  nervous  brevity.  But, 
in  the  historical  part,  a  pertinent  example  often  gives  a  clearer,  and 
far  more  affecting  view  of  a  duty,  than  what  we  could  obtain  from  the 
best  abstract  definition.  Besides,  some  duties  are  proposed  rather  in 
examples  for  our  imitation,  than  in  formal  precepts.  This  is  particu- 
larly the  case  with  those  duties,  which  belong  to  the  order  and  gov- 
ernment of  the  church. 

§  20.  Alex.  This  puts  me  in  mind  of  an  argument  for  catholic 
communion  from  several  examples  recorded  in  the  New  Testament. 

One  of  these  examples  occurs  in  the  case  of  the  converts  under  Pe- 
ter's sermons  on  the  day  of  Pentecost ;  when  the  Jews,  pricked  in 
their  hearts,  cried  out,  "Brethren  what  shall  we  do  ?"  the  apostle  re- 
plied, "Repent,  and  be  baptised  every  one  of  you :  be  baptised  in  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins."  Acts  ii,  87,  38.  This  is 
the  very  first  pre-requisite  for  admission  to  sealing  ordinances ;  the  only 
qualifications  are  repenting,  or  a  change  of  all  their  erroneous  notions 
concerning  the  person  of  Christ,  his  kingdom  and  his  work,  receiving  the 
truth  in  its  simplicity ;  and  believing  in  the  Lord  Jesus  as  the  Saviour 
of  sinners  by  the  blood  of  his  cross  ;  a  faith  manifested  by  a  credible 
profession  of  his  name.* 

Rue.  I  agree  with  your  representation  of  the  import  of  the  apos- 
tle's exhortation,  and  of  the  terms  on  which  these  converts  were  re- 

*Plea,&c.,  pages  28,29. 


ALEXANDER    AND   RUFUS.  67 

ceived  into  communion.  When  they  break  the  sacramental  bread 
together,  they  were  of  one  mind,  homothumadon,  they  were  unani- 
mous in  their  adherence  to  the  apostle's  doctrine,  worship,  and  disci- 
pline, not  a  dissenting  voice.  This  is  a  complete  pattern  of  the  sa- 
cramental communion,  which  I  plead  for. 

How  greatly  different  is  this  from  the  motley  mixture  of  persons 
sitting  down  at  the  Lord's  table  whose  public  professions,  prayers, 
and  thanksgivings  necessarily  and  expressly  contradict  one  another ; 
as  must  be  the  case  when  Presbyterians,  Episcopalians,  Independents, 
Arminians,  and  others  hold  sacramental  communion  together. 

Alex.  The  apostle  mentioned  only  the  great  doctrines  of  faith  and 
repentance :  how  does  it  follow  that  he  required  their  agreement  in 
less  matters  ? 

RuF.  I  think,  you  should  not  attempt  to  evade  the  evidence  of  this 
example,  after  you  have  acknowledged,  that  the  converts  were  admit- 
ted to  communion,  on  this  occasion,  upon  a  change  of  their  erroneous 
notions  concerning  the  person,  kingdom  and  work  of  Christ,  and 
upon  their  receiving  the  truth  in  its  simplicity.  When  you  spoke  of 
their  erroneous  notions  and  of  the  truth,  I  suppose,  you  meant  the 
whole  truth  professed  by  the  apostles  and  all  erroneous  notions  con- 
trary to  that  truth.  There  is  nothing  in  the  passage  but  what  tends 
to  confirm  this  view  of  the  matter.  When  it  is  said,  they  continued 
in  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles,  it  is  plainly  supposed,  that  they  had, 
by  a  public  profession  embraced  that  doctrine :  which  doctrine  un- 
doubtedly included  all  the  truths  and  institutions  of  the  Lord  Jesus ; 
all  that  can  warrantably  belong  to  the  profession  of  any  part  of  the 
catholic  church  at  this  day. 

It  is  true,  the  apostles  are  not  said,  in  the  account  of  their  admis- 
sion of  persons  to  sacramental  communion,  to  have  expressly  mention- 
ed every  article  belonging  to  the  public  profession  of  the  christian 
religion.  But  it,  by  no  means,  follows,  that  such  an  article  did  not 
belong  to  the  profession  made  on  that  occasion ;  or  that  the  apostle 
would  have  admitted  them,  if  they  had  openly  professed  the  contrary 
error.  It  would  be  an  endless  task,  indeed,  on  such  an  occasion,  to 
specify  all  the  articles  of  the  christian  religion  scattered  through  the 
Old  and  New  Testament.  This  is  so  absurd,  that  I  know  of  none 
who  attempt  it.  But  there  are  two  things  which  faithful  office-bearers 
of  the  church  will  be  careful  to  attend  to :  one  is,  that  they  will  not 
admit  any  to  sacramental  communion,  who  publicly  profess  a  notion 
that  is  opposite  to  any  one  article  of  scripture-truth,  which  the  church, 
they  belong  to,  exhibits  in  her  public  profession.  The  other  thing  is, 
if  there  be  any  article  of  the  church's'  profession,  which  is  peculiarly 
controverted,  peculiarly  an  occasion  of  reproach,  no  matter  whether 
it  be  comparatively  great  or  small,  provided,  only,  that  it  be  a  truth 
revealed,  or  a  duty  enjoined  in  the  word  of  God ;  a  faithful  office- 
bearer in  the  house  of  God,  will  scarcely  fail  in  that  case,  to  require 


68  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

of  one,  whom  he  admits  to  sacramental  communion,  an  express  ad- 
herence to  such  a  truth  or  duty.  So  Peter  and  the  other  apostles  re- 
quired of  those,  whom  they  admitted  to  that  communion^  a  particular 
and  express  declaration  of  their  belief  of  this  truth,  That  Jesus,  whom 
the  Jews  had  crucified,  was  the  Messiah,  the  Christ  of  God :  not  only 
on  account  of  its  infinite  importance,  but  also  on  account  of  the  op- 
position it  met  with,  which  rendered  it  at  that  time  eminently  the 
word  of  his  patience. 

Alex.  Another  example  occurs  in  the  case  of  the  Ethiopian  Eunuch 
Philip,  the  evangehst,  instructed  him  from  a  passage  of  Isaiah  in  the 
doctrine  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  and  in  the  nature  and  use  of  the  Chris- 
tian sacraments.  This  is  supposed  in  the  question  of  the  Eunuch, 
What  hinders  me  to  he  baptised  ?  Philip  replied,  that,  if  he  sincerely 
believed  in  Jesus,  he  might.  The  Eunuch  answered,  I  believe,  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God.  Upon  this  profession  he  was  bap- 
tised. Thus,  a  sealing  ordinance  was  administered  to  the  Eunuch  upon 
no  other  terms,  than  a  credible  profession  of  the  faith  in  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.* 

RuF.  Some  advocates  for  what  they  call  catholic  communion,  have 
argued  from  this  text,  that  all  the  profession  of  Christianity,  requisite 
in  order  to  sacramental  communion,  is  a  declared  assent  to  such  pro- 
positions as  these  pecuHarly  recommended  in  the  scripture :  That  Je- 
sus Christ  is  the  Son  of  God;  that  he  came  in  the  flesh;  and  that  he 
rose  from  the  dead; — without  any  regard  to  the  truths  implied  iu,  or 
connected  with  them.  Thus,  their  sacramental  communion  will  be 
extensive  indeed  :  it  will  comprehend  all  that  bear  the  christian  name. 
For,  however  widely  difiterent  their  views  may  be  of  the  import  of 
these  propositions ;  they  all,  even  the  grossest  heretics,  declare  their 
adherence  to  the  letter  of  them.  And,  indeed,  unless  these  proposi- 
tions be  taken  in  this  way,  it  is  vain  to  allege  them  as  favoring  the 
scheme  of  catholic  communion.  For  if  it  once  be  admitted,  that  in  as- 
senting to  such  a  profession,  the  Eunuch  assented  to  whatever  is  ne- 
cessarily impUed  in  it,  and  connected  with  it ;  then,  it  will  follow,  that 
the  Eunuch  assented  to  all  the  doctrines  and  duties  exhibited  in  the 
Westminster  confession  and  catechisms :  for  it  would  be  easy  to  show, 
that  all  these  doctrines,  supposing  them  to  be  contained  in  the  scrip- 
tures, are  implied  in,  or  connected  with  this  proposition ;  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  Son  of  God.  Nor  have  we  any  reason  to  think,  that  if 
the  Eunuch  had  openly  professed,  that  he  rejected  any  one  of  these 
doctrines  or  duties,  Philip  would  have  admitted  him  to  baptism.  Ac- 
cording to  your  own  confession,  Philip  instructed  him  in  the  doctrine 
of  Jesus,  the  Messiah,  and  in  the  nature  and  use  of  the  sacraments. 
The  sacraments  themselves,  are  an  epitome  of  the  christian  religion : 
there  is  nothing  belonging  to  the  doctrine,  worship,  discipline  or  gov- 

*  Plea,  &c.,  pages  29,  30. 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  69 

ernment  of  the  church,  which  is  not  imphed  in,  or  connected  with, 
the  correct  and  regular  use  of  them 

Alex.  A  third  example  occurs  in  the  history  of  Saul.  Upon  what 
grounds  was  he  admitted  to  the  sacrament  of  baptism  ?  Simpl}^  on 
the  ground  of  his  belonging  to  Christ.  For  on  this  ground,  i  hrist 
himself  placed  it.  "He  is  a  chosen  vessel  unto  me,"  saith  the  Re- 
deemer. That  the  knowledge  of  this  fact  was  communicated  to  Ananias, 
is  of  no  weight  in  the  present  argument.  For  the  question  is  not,  how 
we  are  to  ascertain  a  man's  Christianity  But  whether,  on  supposi- 
tion of  its  being  ascertained,  (which  is  always  supposed,  when  we  ad- 
mit its  existence,)  it  is,  in  and  of  itself,  a  sufficient  title  to  gospel  or- 
dinances, in  what  ever  part  of  the  catholic  church  they  may  happen  to 
be;  dispensed.  If  it  is  not,  if  any  thing  more  than  the  evidence  of 
christian  character  be  requisite,  to  create,  both  the  right  and  the  ob- 
ligation to  reciprocal  communion,  it  is  clear,  that  an  immediate  reve- 
lation from  God,  certifying  such  a  character,  could  not  form  a  valid 
claim  to  communion ;  the  apostle  elect  of  the  Gentiles  would  have 
gone  unbaptised. 

RuF.  There  is  no  doubt,  that  a  true  believer,  or  one  belonging  to 
Christ,  has  a  right,  in  foro  Dei,  or  before  God,  to  all  the  ordinances 
of  the  church.  The  apostle  says  to  believers  :  "All  things  are  yours  ; 
whether  Paul,  or  Apollos,  or  Cephas,  or  the  world,  or  life  or  death 
or  things  present,  or  things  to  come;  all  are  yours."  But  here  we 
speak  of  a  title  to  ordinances /oro  liumano  vel  ecclesise,  that  is,  be- 
fore men  or  the  church.  Who  are  true  believers,  or  who  belong  to 
Christ,  cannot  be  certainly  known  by  man.  That  any  should  judge 
the  spiritual  and  secret  state  of  other  men,  is  contrary  to  the  express 
command  of  the  apostle,  Rom.  xiv.  10,  13.  "Why  dost  thou  judge  thy 
brother  ?  or  why  dost  thou  set  at  nought  thy  brother?  We  shall  all 
stand  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ.  Let  us  not  judge  one 
another  any  more."  Hence,  it  is  evident,  that  the  ground,  on  which 
the  office-bearers  of  the  church  are  to  proceed  in  admitting  persons  to 
sacramental  communion,  and  on  which  other  members  are  to  join  with 
them,  cannot  be  simply,  that  such  persons  belong  to  Christ ;  this  be- 
ing a  matter  which,  in  ordinary  cases,  cannot  be  certainly  known,  and 
which  we  are  forbidden  to  judge.  You  say,  that  the  existence  of  a 
man's  Christianity  is  to  be  admitted,  as  a  sufficient  title  to  gospel  ordi- 
nances. If  by  Christianity,  you  mean  a  man's  being  in  a  state  ol  grace, 
or  his  being  united  to  Christ,  (and  the  expression,  belonging  to  Christ, 
leads  to  this  sense,)  such  an  opinion  is  to  be  disapproved  for  the  reason 
just  now  given.  It  seems  to  be  much  the  same  with  the  notion  of  some 
Independents ;  which  is,  that  the  ground  upon  which  persons  are  to  be 
admitted  to  sealing  ordinances,  is  positive  evidence  of  their  regenera- 
tion and  union  to  Christ ;  and  their  pul^lic  declaration  of  their  expe- 
rience of  the  saving  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  their  hearts.  But 
this  opinion  does  not  consist  with  the  representation  of  the  visible 


70  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

church,  either  in  the  Old  Testament,  or  in  the  New.  Moses  said  to 
the  people  of  Israel,  with  regard  to  the  greater  part  of  them,  "The 
Lord  hath  not  given  you  hearts  to  know,  eyes  to  see,  and  ears  to  hear, 
until  this  day.  I  know  thy  rebellion,  and  thy  stiff  neck."  DeuL 
xxix.  4.  Nor  is  the  visible  church  otherwise  represented  in  the 
New  Testament,  particularly,  in  the  parables  of  the  tares,  of  the 
draught  of  fishes,  and  of  the  ten  virgins.  Matthew  xiii,  28,  29,  30, 
47,  48,  XXV.  1,  2.  This  opinion  is  contrary  to  the  end  of  a  gospel  min- 
istry ;  which  is  for  the  conversion  and  begetting  of  faith  in  the  mem- 
bers of  the  visible  church,  as  well  as  for  the  increase  of  their  faith,  and 
progressive  sanctification.  It  tends  to  overthrow  the  necessary  dis- 
tiction  between  the  visible  and  invisible  church.  Or,  by  a  man's  Chris- 
tianity, you  mean,  his  credible  profession  of  the  essentials  of  our  holy 
religion.  This  notion,  we  formerly  considered ;  and  it  appeared,  that 
no  person  has  a  title  to  sealing  ordinances,  in  any  particular  church  of 
Christ,  upon  a  profession  of  his  adherence  to  the  more  important  arti- 
cles of  her  confession,  while  he  openly  and  obstinately  rejects  the  rest; 
these  being  equally  agreeble  to  the  word  of  God  with  the  other.  Or, 
by  a  man's  Christianity,  you  mean,  his  public  profession  of  adherence  to 
all  the  truths  and  institutions  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  a  becoming  practice ; 
without  which,  his  profession  would  not  be  credible.  This  indeed  is  a 
sufficient  ground  for  the  office-bearers  of  the  church  to  proceed  upon 
in  admitting  any  person  to  sealing  ordinances :  I  may  say,  it  is  the 
only  scriptural  ground.  Nor  is  there  any  thing  contrary  to  this  asser- 
tion in  the  account  of  Paul's  admission  to  baptism  upon  his  conversion. 
There  was  nothing  that  could  be  justly  considered  as  a  hindrance  to 
his  admission.  The  circumstances  of  his  conversion  were  miraculous ; 
but  then  they  were  attended  with  irresistible  evidence.  Ananias,  in- 
deed, complained  of  Paul's  having  been  a  violent  persecutor  of  the 
church  of  Christ.  But  Paul  had  now  obtained  mercy ;  and  had  made 
a  profession  of  unlimited  subjection  to  the  Divine  will,  saying,  "Lord, 
what  wilt  thou  have  me  to  do  ?"  It  could  not  be  said,  that  after  his 
conversion,  he  had  opposed  any  truth  or  institution  of  the  Lord  Christ, 
essential,  or  non-essential.  There  was  nothing  in  this  case,  like  the 
catholic  communion  which  is  now  pleaded  for  :  here  was  no  admission 
of  a  person  refusing,  in  any  one  point,  an  adherence  to  the  public  pro- 
fession of  the  particular  church,   to  which  Ananias  belonged. 

Alex.  The  fourth  example,  occurs  in  the  case  of  Cornelius,  the  first 
Gentile  admitted  into  the  christian  church.  While  Peter  was  opening 
up  the  plan  of  salvation,  "the  Holy  Ghost,"  fell  on  all  them  who  heard 
the  word.  Acts  x.  44.  This  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  was  the  sole 
principle  on  which  the  apostle  pronounced  them  to  be  fit  subjects  for 
sacramental  recognition ;  and,  actually  admitted  them  to  all  the  privi- 
leges of  the  christian  church. 

When  Peter  returned  to  Jerusalem,  they  of  the  circumcision  conten- 
ded with  him.     His  defence,  after  a  succinct  history  of  the  steps  by 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  n 

which  he  was  led  to  the  house  of  Cornelius,  of  his  preaching  there,  and 
of  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  his  Gentile  hearers,  is  conclu- 
ded in  these  words :  ''Then  remembered  I  the  word  of  the  Lord,  how 
that  he  said,  John,  indeed,  baptised  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  bap- 
tised with  the  Holy  Ghost.  Forasmuch,  then,  as  God  gave  them  like 
gifts,  as  he  did  unto  us,  who  believed  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  what 
was  I,  that  I  could  withstand  God?"  The  brethren  were  satisfied,  and 
glorified  God,  saying,  ''Then  has  God  granted  to  the  Gentiles  repentance 
unto  life."  Acts  xi.  16,17,18.  Why  should  it  not  be  so  still  ?  Whyshould 
not  such  proof  of  christian  character  in  others,  no  matter  where,  be  at 
this  hour,  as  it  was  then,  the  rule  of  christian  fellowship  on  the  broadest 
scale  ?  The  proofs  on  which  it  should  proceed  according  to  this  exam- 
ple, consist  in  these  four  particulars :  1st,  That  God  has  given  them 
the  Holy  Spirit ;  2d,  that  God  has  borne  witness  to  them  as  his  chil- 
dren, and  heirs  of  the  promise ;  3d,  that  God  has  put  them  upon  a 
perfect  level  with  ourselvas,  by  this  testimony  to  their  faith  in  Christ ; 
so  that  whatever  privileges  we  have,  they  have  also ;  and  are  entitled 
to  receive  with  us,  and  from  us :  4th,  that,  under  this  evidence  of 
their  gracious  relation  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  refuse  them  the 
seal  of  that  relation,  were  to  resist  God.  Why  should  not  a  refusal  of 
that  communion  to  any  whom  we  own,  that  God  has  owned,  by  the 
same  tokens  which  he  has  given  to  us,  be  now,  as  it  would  have  been 
then,  a  withstanding  of  God  ?* 

RuF.  It  may  be  observed,  that  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on 
the  Centurion's  family,  may  be  considered,  as  a  communication  of  his 
miraculous  gifts ;  and,  in  this  respect,  was  designed  to  signify  the  ad- 
mission of  the  Gentiles  into  the  New  Testament  church :  as  is  evident 
from  the  representation  of  the  matter  in  Peter's  vision ;  and  also  from 
the  conclusion  which  the  brethren  drew  from  Peter's  relation  of  the 
affair.  "Then  hath  God  also  to  the  Gentiles  granted  repentance  unto 
life."  From  this  it  followed,  that  persons  were  no  more  to  be  excluded 
from  the  privileges  of  the  christian  church,  because  they  were  Gentiles. 
To  have  refused  sacramental  communion  with  them  on  that  ground, 
would  have  been  to  resist  God.  But  it  does  not  follow,  that  it  would 
have  been  unlawful  to  have  secluded  them  from  that  communion,  if 
they  had  refused  to  make  the  same  profession  of  faith  in  Christ,  which 
the  apostles  made;  or,  if  they  had  openly  and  obstinately  rejected 
some  doctrine  or  command  of  Christ,  delivered  by  the  apostles ;  as  you 
suppose,  according  to  your  catholic  scheme,  that  it  is  unlawful  for 
a  particular  church  to  seclude  persons  from  sacramental  communion, 
who  avow  their  opposition  to  this,  and  the  other,  article  of  her  scrip- 
tural profession. 

But,  supposing  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  them  had  signified 
that  he  was  given  them  as  a  spirit  of  faith :  it  does  not  follow,  that 

*  Plea,  &c.,  pages  81,  32,  33,  34,  35. 


72  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

those  who  were  under  his  influence  did  not  profess  to  receive  the 
whole  doctrine  of  the  apostles ;  or.  that  if  they  had  avowed  their  re- 
jection of  any  article  of  that  doctrine,  the  apostle,  in  refusing  the  sa- 
cramental seal  to  such  persons,  would  have  been  guilty  of  withsi^and- 
ing  God.  I  think,  it  is  not  difficult  for  any  one  to  see  the  incon- 
sistency and  fallacy  of  such  reasoning  as  this:  "God  has  given  his 
Spirit  to  such  people  ;  lie  has  borne  witness  to  them  as  his  children, 
and  heirs  of  the  promise :  he  has  put  them  on  a  perfect  level  with 
ourselves,  by  this  testimony  to  their  faith  in  Christ :  they  are  parta- 
kers of  the  same  privileges,  entitled  to  receive  ivith  and  fi^om  us; 
and  therefore  it  is  to  be  concluded,  that  through  the  opinions  and 
practices  which  they  avow  and  profess  to  maintain,  manifestly  con- 
tradict both  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the  scriptures,  and  also  the 
scriptural  profession  of  a  particular  church  of  Christ ;  yet  they  are, 
on  account  of  their  gracious  state  and  privileges  as  children  of  God, 
to  be  exempted  from  all  admonition  or  rebuke  :  for,  if  they  were 
subject  to  such  censure,  they  might,  if  obstinate,  be  suspended  from 
sealing  ordinances ;  which  suspension,  in  their  case,  is  supposed  to 
be  a  withstanding  of  God.  They  are  to  receive  with  us  and  from 
us ;  though,  by  receiving,  the  order,  that  God  has  appointed 
to  be  observed  in  his  house,  be  manifestly  violated."  How  self- 
contradictory  is  such  a  doctrine  ?  Persons  are  supposed  to  have  re- 
ceived the  Holy  Spirit;  and,  on  that  account,  are  under  a  peculiar  obli- 
gation to  hold  nothing  but  what  is  agreeable  to  his  word ;  and  yet  their 
avowed  opposition  to  what  is  agreeable  to  the  word  is,  on  the  very  same 
account  to  pass  without  censure.  Their  spiritual  privileges  are  great, 
and  the  greatness  of  them  aggravates  their  offences ;  and  yet  on  ac- 
count of  these  privileges,  their  offences  are  so  much  extenuated  as  to 
infer  no  censure.  The  church  is  bound  to  censure  the  offences  of  the 
saints  more  than  those  of  any  other,  because  they  are  saints  ;  and  yet 
for  the  same  reason,  the  great  offence  given  by  their  avowed  obstinacy 
in  error  and  corruption  is,  for  the  sake  of  catholic  communion,  to 
pass  without  any  reproof  or  admonition  at  all  :  for  there  can  be  no  sin- 
cere use  of  these  censures,  when  the  open  contempt  of  them  does  not 
subject  the  offender  to  farther  censure,  and,  in  the  case  of  obstinacy, 
to  suspension  from  sealing  ordinances  Wilfully  to  violate  the  ap- 
pointed order  of  God's  house,  is  to  withstand  him ;  and  yet,  according 
to  the  doctrine  of  catholic  communion,  we  withstand  him,  unless  we 
violate  that  order.  Surely  we  should  beware  of  imputing  such  absur- 
dity to  the  doctrine  and  example  of  the  apostles.  The  truth  is,  their 
sacramental  communion  was  on  the  broadest  scale,  in  this  respect, 
that  every  partaker  of  it  professed  to  receive  their  whole  doctrine, 
worship  and  discipline.  They  enjoined  all  their  communicants  to 
stand  fast,  and  hold  the  traditions  ;  that  is,  the  truths  and  duties  which 
the  apostles  taught  them,  whether  by  epistles  written  to  them,  or  by 
word  of  mouth,  2  Thes.  ii.  15.     This  brings  to  my  mind  a  passage  of 


ALEXANDER    AND    EUFUS.  73 

an  excellent  writer  to  this  pnrpose  :  "  It  is,  in  some  respects,  strange," 
says  he,  "  that  these  very  persons,  who  are  loudest  in  preaching  np 
catholic  love  to  all  saints  without  exception,  should  seem  to  forget 
that  catholic  love  to  all  scriptural  truths  and  duties  is  at  least  equal- 
ly needful  and  equally  enjoined.  Those  who  so  often  and  so  warm- 
ly, though  in  a  vague  and  indefinite  way,  inculcate  charity  towards 
the  weakest  and  the  least  of  the  friends  of  Christ,  should  not  fail  in 
their  regard  to  any  of  the  ordinances  and  commands  of  Jesus,  under 
pretence  of  their  being  little  ones.  Have  they  forgot  what  he  hath 
said,  'Teach  them  to  observe  all  things?  And  whosoever  shall  break 
one  of  the  least  of  these  commandments,  and  teach  men  so,  shall  be 
called  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  but  whosoever  shall  do 
and  teach  them,  the  same  shall  be  called  great  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,"  Math.  v.  19  :  and  again,  'He  that  is  faithful  in  that  which 
is  least,  is  faithful  also  in  much  ;  and  he  that  is  unjust  in  the  least, 
is  unjust  also   in  much,'  Luke,  xvi.  10.* 

Alex.  You  have  not  duly  considered  what  I  observed,  that  the  de- 
scent of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  family  and  friends  of  Cornelius  being  a 
visible  proof  of  God's  acceptance,  was  the  sole  principle  on  which  the 
apostle  pronounced  them  to  be  fit  subjects  for  sacramental  commu- 
nion ;  and  actually  admitted  them  to  all  the  privileges  of  the  christian 
church,  f 

KuF.  I  have  considered  it  as  an  extraordinary  appearance  of  God, 
declaring  his  will  that  the  privileges  of  the  church  were  not  to  be  re- 
fused to  the  Gentiles,  as  or  because  they  were  Gentiles.  In  this  view, 
it  served  to  correct  an  error ;  but  has  no  bearing  on  the  present  ques- 
tion about  the  terms,  on  which  persons  are  to  be  received  into  sacra- 
mental communion.  I  have  also  considered  it  as  respecting  their  gra- 
cious state  and  God's  acceptance  of  them  ;  and  in  this  respect  it  is 
denied  to  be  the  sole  principle  or  the  rule,  according  to  which  the 
apostle  proceeded,  and  set  an  example  to  be  followed  by  the  church 
afterwards,  in  admitting  persons  to  baptism  :  in  the  first  place,^  be 
cause  their  partaking  of  the  extraordinary  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
such  as  speaking  with  tongues,  did  not  necessarily  belong  to  their  du- 
ty or  character  as  christians,  Math.  vii.  22  :  1  Corinth,  xiii.  1,2.  In 
the  second  place,  because  their  profession  of  receiving  the  whole  doc- 
trine taught  them  by  the  apostle  preceded  their  baptism ;  as  is  neces- 
sarily understood,  both  from  the  practice  of  the  apostles  in  other  in- 
stances ;  and,  in  this  case,  from  their  speaking  with  tongues  ;  in  which 
exercise  they,  no  doubt,  declaring  their  cordial  reception  of  the  word 
of  God,  which  they  had  heard.  And  in  the  third  place,  because  the 
partaking  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  respect  of  the  extraordinary  gifts, 
without  a  credible  profession  of  the  faith,  could  be  no  example  to  be 

*  Mr.  Brace's  True  Patriotism,  a  discourse  which  breathes  the  true  spirit  of  our 
old  Reformers,  such  as  Calvin,  Beza,  Welch,  Rutherford, 
t  Plea,  &c.  page  33. 


74  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

followed  by  the  church  as  a  rule ;  since  the  communication  of  such 
gifts  hath  ceased.  In  fine,  the  scheme  of  catholic  communion  cannot 
pretend  to  derive  any  support  or  countenance  from  this  example  ;  un- 
less these  persons  had  openly  declared  that  they  differed  in  some 
things  not  deemed  essential,  from  the  doctrine  and  profession  of  the 
apostles ;  and  unless  Peter  had,  notwithstanding  this  declaration,  ad- 
mitted them  on  the  sole  principle  of  their  being  saints  and  partakers 
of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  a  supposition  which  cannot  consist  either  with  the 
sacred  history  or  with  the  character  of  the  apostles. 

Alex.  I  shall  state  another  example  only  ,  which  occurs  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  reference  from  Antioch,  and  of  the  proceeding  thereon  by 
the  synod  of  Jerusalem  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  apos- 
tles. Certain  men,  ministers  of  the  word,  who  had  come  down  from 
Judea,  taught  the  brethren  and  said,  "  Except  ye  be  circumcised  after 
the  manner  of  Moses,  ye  cannot  be  saved."  This  false  doctrine,  tend- 
ing to  subvert  the  entire  fabric  of  evangelical  truth,  Paul  and  Barabas 
firmly  resisted.  After  much  dissension  and  disputation,  it  was  deter- 
mined to  refer  the  question  to  the  apostles  and  presbyteries  at  Jerusa- 
lem. The  synod  at  Jerusalem,  having  accepted  the  reference,  and 
having  taken  the  subject  into  consideration,  condemned  the  doctrine 
which  had  raised  the  ferment  in  Antioch  ;  prohibited  the  preaching  of 
it  in  the  future,  and,  with  regard  to  remaining  differences,  advised  both 
parties  to  forbearance  and  love. 

Hence  I  observe,  that  this  venerable  synod  distinguished  between  a 
prime  essential  of  Christianity,  the  justification  of  a  sinner  by  faith 
alone,  on  the  one  hand,  and  important  differences,  on  the  other,  which 
left  both  sides  in  possession  of  the  substantial  truth.  The  synod  would 
not  endure,  no,  not  for  one  hour,  the  least  infringement  upon  the  for- 
mer. But  they  would  not  countenance  the  spirit  of  schism  and  sepa- 
ration for  the  sake  of  the  latter  :  with  respect  to  which  they  enjoined 
bearing  and  forbearing.* 

RuF.  Before  you  proceed  any  farther,  I  beg  leave  to  offer  a  remark. 
The  distinction  between  essentials  and  non-essentials  has  been  already 
considered ;  and  the  portion  of  sacred  history,  to  which  you  refer,  af- 
fords no  occasion,  that  I  can  see,  to  resume  that  subject.  It  is  evident 
that  this  synod  gave  no  example  of  forbearing,  even  in  any  matter  not 
essential.  They  condemned,  as  you  have  observed,  the  pernicious  er- 
ror of  the  Judaizing  teachers  about  the  necessity  of  man's  being  cir- 
cumcised, as  the  condition  of  their  justification  and  salvation.  We 
read  also  of  an  opinion  of  some,  that  it  was  necessary  to  circumcise  the 
Gentile  converts,  and  to  command  them  to  keep  the  law  of  Moses. 
But  this  tenet  also  the  synod  of  Jerusalem  rejected  ;  and  allowed  no 
forbearance  of  it. 

Alex.  Prejudice  herself  must  confess,  that  the  variance  between 

*Plea,  &c.,  pages  35,  36. 


ALEXANDER    AND    BUFUS.  75 

the  Gentile  and  Jewish  believers  on  the  subject  of  circumcision  and  of 
the  Mosiac  law  generally,  even  without  the  notion  of  its  necessity  to 
salvation,  was  much  wider,  than  the  variance  between  many  chris- 
tians, who  will  not  commune  together  in  the  body  and  blood  of  their 
common  Lord.* 

RuF.  The  observation  of  circumcision  and  other  parts  of  the  Mosiac 
law,  without  the  notion  of  its  necessity  in  order  to  salvation,  was,  as 
yet,  no  way  sinful.  "  Mosaical  worship,"  as  Dr.  Owen  observes,f 
'*"■  was  not  utterly  to  cease,  so  as  to  have  no  acceptance  with  God,  until 
the  fioal  ruin  of  the  Jewish  church  foretold  by  our  Saviour.  The 
things  prescribed  by  the  ceremonial  law  were  in  themselves  indiflfer- 
emi ;  yet  the  observation  of  them,  from  a  pure  reverence  of  their  ori- 
ginal institution,  was  not  displeasing  to  God  ;  while  he  had  not  yet 
brought  out  all  the  evidence,  which  he  designed  to  afford,  of  their 
abolition,  particularly  by  the  demolishing  of  the  temple ;  after  which 
no  mutual  forbearance  was  to  be  exercised  about  that  observance." 
If  such  indifferent  things  give  offence  to  weak  brethren,  they  ought  to 
be  abstained  fiom  ;  as  the  Gentile  converts,  according  to  the  decree  of 
this  synod,  were  to  abstain  from  meats  offered  to  idols,  and  from  blood 
and  from  things  strangled.  The  purport  of  this  decree,  as  Calvin  in 
his  institutions]:  observes,  was  to  enjoin,  not  an  observation  of  the  cere- 
monial law,  but  an  observation  of  the  moral  law  ;  in  abstaining  from 
giving  offence  to  weak  brethren  by  things  in  themselves  indifferent, 
it  is  evident,  that  such  indifferent  things,  or  things  which  a  chun^h's 
profession  has  not  detefimined,  according  to  the  word  of  God,  to  be 
either  sin  or  duty,  ought  to  be  no  bars  to  sacramental  communion.  Such 
were  the  ceremonial  rites,  that  were  still  practised  by  the  believing 
Jews  ;  they  were,  as  yet,  indifferent  things  ;  and  therefore,  while  there 
is  any  thing  really  sinful  in  the  differences  between  the  parties,  that 
you  suppose  should  have  sacramental  communion  together ;  that  dif- 
ference is  incomparably  greater,  than  any  which  was  allowed  by  the 
synod  to  continue  between  the  Jewish  converts  and  the  Gentile  be- 
lievers. 

I  have  often  wondered  how  any  who  hold  the^ws  Divinum,  the  Di- 
vine right  of  Presbyterial  church  government,  could  ever  fall  in  with 
the  catholic  scheme  of  sacramental  communion.  According  to  that 
scriptural  form  of  government,  a  presbytery  or  synod  has  authority, 
from  the  Lord  Christ,  to  pass  acts  concerning  the  discipline  of  the 
church  and  ihe  order  of  public  worship ;  which  acts,  if  consonant  to 
the  word  of  God,  are  to  be  received  with  reverence  and  submission, 
not  only  for  their  agreement  with  the  word  of  God,  but  for  the  min- 
isterial authority,  by  which  they  are  enacted.     Such  acts  are  to  be  re- 

*  Plea,  &c.,  page  37.  * 

t  In  the  preface  to  his  Commentary  on  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

X  Lib.  iv.  cap.  10,  sect,  21. 


76  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

garcled,  not  merely  as  advices  or  recommendations ;  but  as  authorita- 
tive decisions :  nor  can  the  avowed  and  obstinate  opposers  of  them 
be  admitted  consistently  with  the  principles  of  Presbyterial  church- 
government,  to  communion  with  the  church  in  sealing  ordinances ;  for 
such  opposition,  besides  the  evil  of  not  receiving  a  rule  which  is 
agreeable  to  the  word  of  God,  is  a  manifest  trampling  upon  the  au- 
thority which  God  has  given  to  the  office-bearers  of  his  house,  for  ed- 
ification, and  not  for  destruction.  So  this  meeting  of  the  apostles 
and  elders  at  Jerusalem  is  said  to  have  ordained  decrees.  There  were 
two  cases  before  them  :  one  was,  that  of  Judaizing  teachers  ;  the  oth- 
er was  that  of  the  offence,which  the  Jewish  converts  had  taken  at  the 
Gentiles,  for  refusing  to  observe  the  law  of  Moses.  With  regard  to 
former  case,  they  condemned  the  Judaizing  teachers  and  their  doc- 
trine :  with  regard  to  the  latter,  they  decreed,  that  the  Gentiles,  in  or- 
der to  avoid  offending  their  Jewish  brethren,  should  abstain,  not  only 
from  fornication,  which  was  itself  a  moral  evil ;  but  also,  while  the 
present  occasion  of  offence  continued,  from  some  things  in  themselves 
indifferent ;  namely,  from  meats  offered  to  idols,  from  things  strangled, 
and  from  blood  :  and  they  laid  a  burden  upon  the  Gentiles  as  to  those 
necessary  things. 

Now  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt,  that,  while  the  occasion  of  these 
decrees  continued,  wilful  and  obstinate  opposition  to  them,  even  in  those 
things  that  were  in  themselves  indifferent,  would  be  sufficient  to  pre- 
clude persons  from  sacramental  communion  No  church  member 
could  refuse  the  burden  of  these  necessary  things,  and  despise  the  au- 
thority of  this  synod,  without  censure.  Paul  and  Silas,  as  they  went 
through  the  cities,  delivering  to  the  churches  these  decrees  for  to 
keep  ;  that  is,  they  delivered  them,  as  belonging,  to  the  rule  of  church 
communion. 

Wafranted  by  this  example,  a  church,  as  represented  by  her  minis- 
ters and  elders,  may  pass  many  acts  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God,  con- 
ducive to  the  maintaining  of  truth  and  peace  in  the  churchy,  though  not 
immediately  relating  to  what  are  usually  termed  the  essentials  of  the 
christian  religion ;  and  may  lawfully  refuse  to  admit  the  open  con- 
temners and  opposers  of  these  acts,  to  sacramental  communion. 

On  the  whole  the  example  of  this  synod  is  so  far  from  favoring  the 
scheme  of  catholic  communion,  that  it  is  directly  opposite  to  it ;  and 
manifestly  affords  an  effectual  refutation  to  it. 

Alex.  Was  Paul's  circumcision  of  Timothy,  of  which  we  have  an 
account  in  the  third  verse  of  the  next  chapter,  agreeable  to  the  deci- 
sion of  this  synod  ? 

RuF.  Yes  ;  the  synod's  decision  specified  some  things  in  themselves 
indifferent,  which  were  to  be  abstained  from  for  avoiding  the  oflence 
of  weaker  brethren.  Some  other  legal  ceremonies,  in  the  same  case 
might  be  considered  in  the  same  light  :  among  these  was  circumcision  ; 
which  therefore;  might  still  be  lawfully  used  for  preventing  the  offence 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  77 

of  the  Jewish  converts.  Had  Paul  taught,  that  drcumcision  was  in 
itself  necessary  as  a  commanded  duty,  like  baptism  or  the  Lord's  sup- 
per, he  would  have  contradicted  the  synod's  decision ;  but,  in  the 
simple  use  of  it,  as  an  indifferent  thing,  merely  for  avoiding  offence 
he  proceeded  upon  the  principle,  and  adhered  to  the  spirit,  of  that  de- 
cision. 

§  21 .  Alex.  To  refuse  church  communion  with  a  church  or  with  her 
members  is,  in  effect,  to  unchurch  her,  and  to  declare,  that  she  is  no 
church,  and  that  her  members  are  no  followers  of  Jesus  Christ.  At 
least,  it  is  a  declaration,  that  they  are  so  very  corrupt,  as  to  render 
their  communion  unlawful.  Now  such  a  declaration,  whether  express- 
ed or  implied,  can  be  received  as  nothing  less,  on  the  part  of  those  v/ho 
make  it,  than  excommunication  in  disguise ;  but  a  disguise  so  thin, 
that  it  might  as  well  be  dropt  :  excommunication  being  a  judicial  ex- 
clusion from  the  communion  of  the  church  on  account  of  the  unwor- 
thiness  of  the  excommunicated  ;  or  on  account  of  the  unlawfulness  of 
holding  communion  with  them.  Your  conduct  in  refusing  communion 
with  a  church  or  individuals,  and  justifying  the  refusal  by  the  plea  and 
their  corruption,  is  a  virtual  denial  of  their  visible  Christianity  :  and 
having  already  the  substance,  wants  nothing  but  the  form,  of  an  ex- 
communicating act.  'I  his  consequence,  viz  :  the  virtual  unchurching 
and  excommunicating  ail  the  churches  and  people  of  God  upon  earth, 
with  whom  we  refuse  communion,  is  so  dreadful  that  any  christian 
heart  shrink  from  it  with  fear  and  horror.* 

RuF.  I  have  already  mentioned  the  important  distinction  between  a 
true  church  and  a  pure  church.  A  church  may  retain  the  principal 
doctrines  and  ordinances  of  the  christian  religion  in  her  profession,  in 
such  a  measure,  that  she  may  be  justly  called  a  true  church;  and  yet 
she  may,  as  an  ecclesiastical  body,  have  such  errors  in  doctrine ;  such 
human  inventions  as  integral  parts  of  her  worship  ;  such  unscriptural 
ofiicers  and  usages  in  her  government ;  or  may  be  chargeable  with  such 
defection  from  reformation,  formerly  attained,  that  we  cannot  be  faith- 
ful to  the  cause  of  Christ, which,  in  these  respects,  is  opposed  ;  nor  to 
the  catholic  church,  for  whose  true  interest  we  are  bound  to  use  our 
best  endeavors  ;  nor  to  the  souls  of  men,  which  are  deeply  injured  by 
such  evils  ;  without  withdrawing  from  her  communion.  A  particular 
church  in  this  case,  though  she  ceases  to  be  a  pure  church,  may  still 
be  called  a  true  church  of  Christ  on  account  of  the  measure,  in  which 
she  retains  the  profession  of  his  truths  and  ordinances.  Though 
continuing  in  her  communion  be  sinful ;  yet  that  sinfulness  does  not 
take  away,  as  I  formerly  observed,  the  validity  of  her  ordinances. 
Nor  are  we  to  limit  the  sovereignty  of  the  grace  of  God,  as  to  the 
use  he  may  make  of  what  is  agreeable  to  his  own  word,  in  the  doctrine 
and  administrations  of  such  a  church,  both  for  the  conversion  of  sin- 

*  Plea,  &c.,  pages  303,  303. 


78  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

ners  and  for  promoting  the  sanctification  of  his  people.  As  continuiDg 
in  the  communion  of  such  a  backsliding  church  is  sinful ;  so  is  every  act 
of  communion  :  because,  as  has  been  already  observed,  in  that  act,  a 
person  cannot  make  any  other  profession  of  the  christian  rehgion  than 
the  public  profession  of  the  particular  church  with  which  he  communi- 
cates. His  sin,  in  this  matter,  is  more  or  less  aggravated,  according  to 
his  own  profession  of  religion,  according  to  his  knowledge  of  the  evils 
of  that  church's  profession  ;  and  according  to  his  other  attainments. 
But  we  have  as  little  reason,  on  this  account,  to  conclude  that  there  are 
no  followers  of  Jesus  Christ  in  such  a  church  ;  as  we  have  to  suppose, 
that  there  were  no  godly  persons  remaining  in  Israel,  when  Elijah 
complained^  that  he  was  left  alone.  If  there  be  no  lawful  refusing  af 
sacramental  communion,  with  a  particular  church,  then  there  can  be 
no  lawful  separation  from  it,  till  it  be  unchurched.  But  the  latter  is 
absurd  ;  and  therefore  the  former.  I  think,  it  is  manifestly  absurd  to 
say,  that  we  are  not  separate  from  a  particular  church,  however  de- 
generate and  corrupt  in  doctrine,  worship,  discipline,  and  goveru- 
ment )  till  it  is  no  church  of  Christ  at  all :  for  this  would  be  to  suppose 
that,  though  Christ  has  provided  the  censures  of  the  church  as  means  of 
preserving  her  from  the  danger  arisin'g  from  the  offences  of  one  or  a 
few  members,  he  has  provided  no  means  of  her  preservation  from  the 
far  greater  danger  of  utter  ruin  by  the  prevailing  influence  of  a  cor- 
rupt majority.  When  such  a  majority  is  found  incorrigibly  obstinate 
in  their  opposition  to  any  steps  towards  a  thorough  reformation,  it  is 
evident,  that  there  is  no  remedy  but  secession.  By  such  a  majority, 
one  great  end  of  church  communion,  w^hich  is,  that  the  truths  and  in- 
stitutions of  the  Lord  Jesus  may  be  preserved  pure  and  entire,  is 
avowedly  and  obstinately  opposed  ;  and  therefore,  in  this  case,  the  Lord 
Jesus,  is  saying  to  his  people,  as  in  2  Corinth,  vi.  17,  ^'  Come  out  from 
among  them,  and  be  ye  separate."  Many  limit  such  calls  to  our  depar- 
ture from  the  communion  of  Pagans  and  Papists.  But  they  are  appli- 
cable to  our  secession  ^from  any  prevailing  party^  even  though  they 
should  bear  the  name  of  christians,  of  Protestants  and  Presbyterians, 
who,  in  their  united  capacity,  or  as  a  professing  body,  are  going  on  in 
obstinate  opposition  to  any  of  the  truths  and  institutions  of  Jesus 
Christ ;  so  that  none  can  continue  in  their  church  communion, without 
being  involved  in  the  guilt  of  that  opposition.  From  such  combina- 
.tions  Christ  is  calling  his  people  to  separate. 

It  is  not  meant,  however,  that  degenerate  Protestants  and  Presby- 
terians are  upon  a  level  with  Heathens  and  Papists  ; .  for  there  may  be 
a  just  cause  of  separation  from  the  former,  though  not  so  great  as 
from  the  latter.  A  warrantable  secession  from  a  particular  church  of 
Christ,  is  a  most  serious  and  important  step.  It  is  the  result  of  assiduity  in 
searching  the  scriptures,  of  much  prayer  and  fasting,  of  long  struggling 
with  a  prevailing  party,  obstinate  in  a  course  of  defection.  When  a 
warrantable  secession  has  been  made  ;  and,  while  the  ground  of  it  con- 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  79 

tinues,  there  is  the  highest  moral  necessity  of  adhering  to  it.  The 
Lord  Jesus  is  saying  to  those,  who  have  taken  such  a  step  :  Whatever 
profession  or  practice  ye  have  attained  of  the  truths  and  ordinances 
delivered  in  my  word,  "  hold  fast  till  I  come  :"  and  with  respect  to  par- 
ticular churches,  that  persist  in  the  evils  which  have  occasioned  a 
necessary  secession,  his  direction  is  plain.  "  Let  them  return  unto  you, 
but  return  ye  not  unto  them. "  But  when  we  have  sacramental  com- 
munion with  any  church  from  which  we  have  separated,  we  do  return 
to  them  :  for,  in  our  act  of  communicating  with  any  church,  we  declare 
our  agreement  with  that  church  in  its  peculiar  and  distinguishing  pro- 
fession of  the  christian  religion  :  we  own  the  profession  of  that  church 
to  be  right,  and  to  be  so  in  preference  to  every  different  and  contrary 
profession.  This  is  a  direct  contradiction  of  the  profession  we  make 
in  our  separate  communion.  According  to  this  scheme,  we  may  in 
our  sacramental  communion,  one  Sabbath  profess,  that  all  true  believers 
shall  certainly  persevere  in  a  state  of  grace  unto  the  end  ;  that  the  in- 
fants of  church  members  ought  to  be  baptised  ;  that  we  have  in  the  book 
of  Psalms  a  system  of  psalmody  sufficient  for  the  exercise  of  singing 
in  public  worship  ;  and  that  no  hymns  of  human  composure  ought  to 
be  used  in  that  exercise  ;  or  that  the  testimony,  maintained  by  the  Se- 
cession church,  ought  to  be  cordially  embraced,  as  the  testimony  which 
Christ  is  calling  his  people  to  maintain  at  this  day  ;  and  yet,  on  the 
very  next  Sabbath,  we  may,  in  our  sacramental  communion,  profess 
directly  contrary  to  our  former  profession,  that  true  believers  may  fall 
away  from  their  state  of  grace  totally  and  finally ;  that  infant  baptism 
is  no  baptism  ;  that  the  songs  in  the  Book  of  Psalms  are  not  sufficient 
for  the  exercise  of  singing  in  public  and  solemn  worship,  various  hymns 
of  human  composure  being  thought  more  proper  to  be  sung  in  New 
Testament  worship  ;  or  that  adherence  to  what  is  called  the  Secession 
Testimony  is  unwarrantable,  Must  we  thus  say,  yea  and  nay  ;  must 
we  lie  and  prevaricate  with  God  and  man,  in  order  to  avoid  the  charge 
of  unchurching  and  excommunicating  the  churches,  from  which  we  are 
justly  separated  ? 

I  cannot  see,  however,  that  we  are  under  any  such  necessity.  For 
it  does  not  necessarily  follow,  from  our  declining  the  communion  of  a 
particular  church,  that  we  deny  its  profession  and  practice  to  be  so  far 
good,  as  to  entitle  it  to  the  name  of  a  church  of  Christ.  It  is  no  less 
the  end  of  our  separation  from  several  churches,  that  they  may  be  re- 
covered from  their  backsliding  and  preserved  as  churches  of  Christ, 
than  that  we  ourselves  may  be  preserved  fi'om  the  contagion  of  their 
errors.  A  religious  society  may  be  called  a  church  of  Christ,  while  it 
holds  the  scripture  to  be  the  word  of  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  come  in 
the  flesh,  to  be  the  foundation.  But  the  apostle  in  1  Corinth,  iii.  11, 
15,  shows  us,  that  some  who  hold  this  foundation  may  build  upon  it, 
we  know  not  how  much,  wood,  hay  and  stubble,  to  their  great  loss. 
When  we  refuse,  therefore,  to  have  sacramental  communion  with  cor- 


80  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

rupt  churches,  we  refuse  to  join  with  them  in  the  building  of  wood, 
hay,  stubble,  as  dangerous  to  themselves,  and  as  to  what  would  be  so  to 
us  ;  but  we  do  not,  therefore,  deny,  that  they  build  on  the  foundation  ; 
or  that  they  are  churches  of  Christ. 

Nor  have  the  advocates  for  catholic  communion  any  good  reason  to 
call  our  declining  sacramental  communion  with  various  corrupt  churches 
an  excommunication  of  these  churches.  Excommunication  always 
implies  the  exercise  of  authority  over  the  persons  excommunicated  ; 
but  declining  sacramental  communion  implies  no  exercise  of  authority 
at  all.  Excommunication  always  respects  persons,  and  proceeds  upon 
a  trial  of  personal  conduct ;  hence  it  is  unwarrantable  to  pretend,  as 
the  Papists  do,  to  excommunicate  whole  churches  or  bodies  of  men. 
But  this  declining  of  sacramental  communion  proceeds  not  upon  a 
judgment  concerning  the  conduct  of  persons ;  but  upon  a  judgment 
concerning  the  profession  of  religion  made  by  a  particular  church. 
Besides,  a  church's  suspending  a  person  from  sacramental  communion 
is  a  degree  of  censure  ;  but  it  cannot  be  called  excommunication  ;  and 
far  less,  can  her  act  of  merely  declining  that  communion  be  so  called. 
I  cannot  conceive  what  induces  any  to  call  a  conscientious  refusal  to 
communicate  with  corrupt  churches,  an  excommunication  of  these 
churches,  unless  it  be,  what  is  common  to  this  with  every  other  instance 
of  the  practice  of  godliness,  that  it  necessarily  condemns  the  contrary 
practice  ;  just  as  Noah's  awful  regard  to  Grod's  threatening  to  destroy 
the  world  by  water,  manifested  by  his  preparing  the  ark,  condemned 
the  contempt,  with  which  that  threatening  was  treated  by  the  ungodly 
generation  among  whom  he  lived. 

Alex.  Every  church  refusing  to  hold  communion  with  another,  does, 
by  that  fact,  declare  that  she  is  too  pure  for  such  a  communion,  and 
that  it  would  contaminate  her  in  the  eyes  of  her  Grod,  and  bring  down 
upon  her  the  tokens  of  his  displeasure.  A  church,  that  makes  such 
pretensions,  ought  to  be  very  sure  of  her  own  sanctity  ;  very  sure,  that 
the  mantles  of  her  excluding  zeal  does  not  cover  offences  against  the 
Lord  her  God,  quite  as  provoking  as  those  which  she  charges  upon 
others",  that  she  does  not  wink  at  abuses  in  her  own  members,  while 
she  laments  and  approaches  her  neighbors  ;  and  that  there  is  no  place 
for  the  Jewish  proverb,  "  Physician,  heal  thyself"  This  precaution  is 
the  more  necessary  ;  as  the  very  assumption  of  a  censorial  power  over 
her  christian  sisters  invites  the  most  unsparing  scrutiny  :  and  it  is  no 
honorable  mark  that  is  affixed  by  Truth  itself,  to  those  who,  regardless 
of  their  own  faults,  say,  "  Stand  by  thyself ;  come  not  near  me  ;  for 
I  am  holier  than  thou."* 

RuF.  What  you  have  advanced,  imports,  that  a  particular  church,  in 
the  case,  you  suppose,  of  her  tolerating  great  evils  in  her  own  members, 
is  not  in  a  capacity  for  a  consistent  exercise  of  discipline  in  excluding 

*Plea,  &c.,  page  301. 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  81 

tlie  members  of  other  churches  for  their  errors  and  corruptions.  But 
this  does  not  prove  your  assertion,  that  it  is  not  her  duty  to  do  so.  A 
person  is  not  freed  from  the  obligation  he  is  under  to  the  moral  duty  of 
reproving  the  sins  of  others  ;  tliough  his  being  chargeable  with  the 
same  or  greater  sins,  without  reformation,  unfits  him  for  the  discharge 
of  that  duty.  So  a  church's  obligation  to  censure,  whatever  is  contrary 
to  her  holy  profession,  in  any  who  apply  to  her  for  admission  to  her  seal- 
ing ordinances,  remains  entire  ;  however  much  her  capacity  for  doing 
so,  may  be  lessened  by  the  inconsistent  practice  of  her  members. 
What  you  have  now  offered  contains  no  argument  for  your  scheme  of 
catholic  communion  ;  but  it  is  only  a  bitter  reflection  on  any  church 
that  endeavors  to  bear  a  consistent  and  faithful  testimony  against  that 
scheme,  and  to  retain  the  scriptural  reformation  in  doctrine  and  order 
which  their  forefathers  handed  down  as  the  cause  of  Grod  and  truth. 
Depraved  human  nature,  being  the  same  in  them  as  in  others,  produces 
the  same  deplorable  effects.  But,  it  is  hoped,  that  the  grace  of  God  in 
Christ  teaches  them  to  study  personal  as  well  as  public  reformation. 
The  criminal  partiality  alluded  to  in  conniving  at  offences  and  abuses 
is  directly  contrary  to  their  profession  ;  and  therefore  the  careful  study 
of  consistency  with  that  profession  must  be  the  way  to  attain  a  thorough 
reformation  from  all  such  abuses  and  offences.  The  amendment  of 
their  lives  is  not  to  be  prompted  by  imbibing  lax  principles  with  regard 
to  church  communion  ;  but  rather  by  a  firm  persuasion,  that  they  can 
never  adhere  too  closely  to  their  scriptural  profession,  and  to  the  holy 
order  that  Christ  has  appointed  in  his  house. 

With  regard  to  the  spiritual  pride  implied  in  the  expression,  "  I  am 
holier  than  thou,''  I  would  ask,  Whether  does  more  of  it  appear  in  those 
who  lament  the  coldness  of  their  affections  towards  God,  and  towards 
his  people,  as  bearing  his  image  ;  and  who  ascribe  their  failure,  not  to 
any  deficiency  in  the  means  appointed  in  the  word  of  God ;  but  to 
their  own  neglect,  or  misimprovement  of  these  means  ?  Or  does  not 
as  much,  or  more  of  it,  appear  in  men's  boasting  of  such  enlarged  af- 
fection to  the  saints  of  all  denominations,  as  are  miserably  cramped  by 
any  other  latitudinarian  sacramental  communion  ? 

I  might  also  ask,  Whether  the  appearance  of  seeking  the  praise  of 
men,  on  account  of  personal  piety,  be  greater  in  those,  who  ingratiate 
themselves  with  various  societies,  making  contradictory  professions  of 
religion,  by  holding  sacramental  communion  with  them ;  or  in  those, 
who  satisfy  themselves  with  that  church  communion  and  dispensation 
of  gospel  ordinances,  which  they  judge  to  be  most  agreeable  to  the 
word  of  God  ? 

The  distinguished  profession  of  the  Novatians  and  Donatists  of  old 
led  them  to  value  themselves  upon  their  spiritual  attainments  ;  and  to 
reckon  themselves  polluted  by  the  personal  sins,  and  particularly  by 
the  unregenerate  state  of  their  follow  communicants.  The  principle  of 
the  latitudinarian,  which  is  now  the  fashionable  scheme  of  church  com- 
6 


82  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

munion,  is  much  the  same.  The  principle,  I  mean,  is,  that  we  are  to 
have  sacramental  communion  with  all  that  we  judge  to  have  real  com- 
munion with  Christ :  and  this  rule  plainly  implies,  that  we  are  to  have 
communion  with  no  other.  It  is  no  rule,  if  it  means,  that  we  may 
have  communion  with  such  as  we  do  not  judge  to  have  real  communion 
with  him.  When  any  church  admits  persons  to  sacramental  com- 
munion according  to  this  scheme,  she  must  consider  them,  and  they 
are  lead,  by  her  admission  of  them,  to  consider  themselves  as  real 
saints.  It  is  true,  none  ought  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  supper  with- 
out faith,  by  which  they  are  to  feed  on  Christ :  yet  it  does  not  follow 
that  none  are  to  apply  for  sacramental  communion  with  any  church, 
till  they  have  attained  sensible  assurance  of  their  having  actually  be- 
lieved, or  of  their  being  already  in  Christ :  for,  as  this  sacrament  is 
appointed  for  the  relief  of  weak  and  doubting  christians  :  so  persons, 
in  this  case,  who  bewail  their  unbelief,  and  labor  to  have  their  doubts 
resolved,  who  desire  to  be  found  in  Christ,  and  to  depart  from  all  ini- 
quity, may,  and  ought  to  come  to  the  Lord's  supper,  that  they  may  be 
farther  strengthened.  But  when  a  church  admits  a  person  on  the  lati- 
tudinarian  scheme  to  partake  of  sealing  ordinances,  she  must  consider 
them  as  professing,  that  they  have  attained  the  sensible  asssurance  be- 
fore mentioned.  Now,  whether  does  such  a  profession  as  this,  or  that 
of  only  adhering  to  the  confession  of  a  particular  church,  and  engaging 
to  study  a  practice  conformable  to  it,  savor  most  of  the  proud  boast- 
ing of  one  who  says.  Come  not  jiear  me  ;  for  I  am  hoHer  than  thou  ? 
The  truth  is,  men's  spiritual  pride  and  conceit  of  their  own  righteous- 
ness, are  much  fostered  by  an  obstinate  attachment  to  human  devices 
in  the  worship  of  God.  This  was  the  case  with  the  Pharisees,  in  our 
Saviour's  time.  Hence,  he  said  unto  them,  "•  In  vain  do  ye  worship  me, 
teaching  for  doctrine,  the  commandments  of  men."  But  he  no  where 
ascribes  any  such  tendency  to  our  holding  fast  the  spiritual  profes- 
sion which  we  have  made,  or  to  our  refusing  church  communion  with 
the  avowed  and  obstinate  opposers  of  any  part  of  it.  True  humility 
and  self-distrust,  will  make  a  person  afraid  to  venture  out  of  the 
straight  path  of  duty  in  the  smallest  matter.  The  fear  of  the  Lord 
leads  us  to  walk  in  the  midst  of  the  paths  of  judgment.  The  humble 
are  always  aware  of  the  danger  of  temptation,  and  of  their  inability  to 
resist  it :  they  are,  therefore,  apprehensive  of  danger  from  the  com- 
munion, and  the  artifices  of  the  erroneous ;  while  self-conceited  and 
high-minded  professors,  consider  any  delicacy  or  caution,  in  this  res- 
pect, as  quite  needless,  or  even  ridiculous.  You  say,  that  by  the  fact 
of  refusing  to  hold  communion  with  a  particular  churchy  on  account  of 
her  corruption,  we  pretend  to  be  too  pure  for  such  communion.  But 
it  may  be  said  more  justly,  to  the  practisers  of  latitudinarian  com- 
munion, You  reckon  yourselves  too  pure  to  be  in  any  danger  from  the 
infection  of  the  public  corruptions,  which  are  acknowledged  to  prevail 
in  various  churches  with  which  you  propose  to  communicate. 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  83 

§  22.  Alex.  Such  is  the  fastidiousness  of  certain  churches,  that  the 
simple  hearing  of  the  gospel  from  the  mouth  of  the  most  faithful  min- 
ister, who  happens  not  to  be  within  their  own  circle,  is  an  ecclesiastical 
crime,  and  a  sufficient  ground  of  church  censure.  And  should  such  a 
minister  be,  on  any  occasion,  admitted  in  ministerial  communion  to  one 
of  their  pulpits,  however  honored  he  may  be  to  God  :  I  tremble  to  say 
it ; — blasphemy  itself  could  hardly  excite  a  greater  ferment.  It  would 
be  vain  to  deny  the  accuracy  of  this  statement.  It  is  the  truth,  the 
plain  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth.  The  facts  w^hich  justify  it,  are 
notorious  to  the  whole  world.* 

RuF.  In  our  professed  inquiry  after  truth  and  duty,  passionate  ex- 
pressions are  of  no  use,  unless  it  be  to  impose  on  the  unwary,  or  such 
as  are  unwilling  to  be  at  the  trouble  of  thinking  for  themselves.     The 
hearing   of  the  word   preached,  is   a  solemn   ordinance  of  the   Lord 
Christ ;  and  it  really  concerns  us  to  observe  it  in  the  right  manner. 
The  scripture  certainly  forbids  us  to  hear  teachers  of  error  ;  "Cease  my 
son,"  says  Solomon,  "to  hear  the  instruction  which  causes  to  err  from 
the  words  of  knowledge."     "If  there  come  any  unto  you,"  says  the 
apostle  John,  "and  bring  not  this  doctrine,"  that  is,  the  doctrine  of 
Christ,  "  receive  him  not  into  your  house  ;  neither  bid  him  God  speed  : 
For  he  that  biddethhim  God  speed,  is  a  partaker  of  his  evil  deeds." 
What  I  understand  by  a  teacher  of  error,  is  not  one  w^ho  may  mistake 
the  scope  of  a  particular  text ;  or  who  may  often  take  what  seems  to 
be  the  least  probable  side  in  a  doubtful  question  ;  or  who  may  even 
hold  an  erroneous  opinion,  on  a  point  not  yet  determined  in  the  church's 
public  profession  ;  if  he  does  not  contend  for  his  nostrum  or  peculiar 
opinon,  to  the  prejudice  of  any  article  of  the  church's  profession  ;  nor  to 
the  disturbing  of  her  peace  :  nay,  though  a  minister,  through  infirmity 
or  inadvertance,  deliver  something  contrary  to  the  truth,  so  professed 
and  attained  ;  yet,  while  he  discovers  no  obstinate  attachment  to  any 
such  tenet,  he  is  not  to  be  denounced  as  a  teacher  of  error.     But  one 
who  not  only  delivers  such  error,  as  I  have  described,  in  his  public  dis- 
courses, but  holds  it  as  a  part  of  his  public  profession,  is  justly  ac- 
counted an  erroneous  teacher.     The  members  of  a  church,  adhering  to 
Presbyterial  church  government,  as  an  ordinance  of  the  Lord  Christ, 
should  consider  a  minister  as  teacher  of  error,  who  publicly  professes,  that 
Christ    has    committed   the  government   of  the  church   to  diocesan 
bishops  ;  or  that  he  has  appointed  the  community  of  the  faithful  to  gov- 
ern themselves  in  congregations  ;  each  of  which  is  independent  and  un- 
connected, in  order  and  discipline,  with  any  other ;  or  that  Christ  has 
appointed  no  particular  form  of  church  government  at  all :  but  has  left 
it  to  be  modeled  by  magistrates,   or  by  ministers,  or  by  the  people 
themselves,  according  to  the  maxims  of  human  prudence.     The  mem- 
bers of  a  church,  adhering  to  the  Westminister  Confession  of  Faith, 

*Plea,  &c.,  pages  299,  300. 


84  ALEXANDER    AND    EUFUS. 

should  hold  a  minister  to  be  a  teacher  of  error,  who  publicly  professes, 
that  there  is  no  eternal  decree  of  God,  infallibly  determining  a  certain 
number  of  fallen  men  to  everlasting  life ;  that  Christ  laid  down  his 
life  for  all  the  individuals  of  mankind ;  that  unrenewed  men  have  a 
natural  ability  to  believe  in  Christ,  to  repent,  or  to  yield  any  such 
obedience  to  the  law  as  is  pleasing  to  God  ;  and  that  true  believers 
may  fall  away  fi'om  their  gracious  state  totally  and  finally.  The  mem- 
bers of  the  secession  church,  should  hold  a  minister  to  be  a  teacher  of 
error,  who  publicly  professes  any  of  the  errors  now  mentioned  ;  and 
also,  who,  notwithstanding  a  professed  adherence  to  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith,  publicly  professes  any  of  the  errors  condemned 
in  their  declaration  and  testimony  for  the  doctrine  and  order  of  the 
church  of  Christ.  It  is  evident,  that  church  members,  in  going  to  hear 
such  ministers  in  the  case  now  stated,  go  to  hear,  and,  by  their  exam- 
ple, to  countenance  and  encourage  others  in  going  to  hear,  what  they 
themselves  publicly  acknowledge  to  be  error,  and  to  be  another  doc- 
trine than  the  doctrine  of  Christ.  It  is  hard  to  conceive,  how  any, 
who  consider  this  subject  with  candor,  can  deny  the  justice  of  apply- 
ing to  the  case  now  described,  the  passages  already  quoted,  forbidding 
us  to  receive  or  hear  teachers  of  error.  Farther,  it  is  to  be  considered, 
that  there  is  church  communion  in  hearing  the  word  preached,  as  well 
as  in  receiving  the  Lord's  supper.  In  the  former,  as  well  as  in  the 
latter,  we  make  a  joint  profession  of  the  christian  religion  :  and  that 
profession  can  be  no  other  in  either  of  these  ordinances,  than  that  of  the 
church  with  which  we  join  in  observing  them.*  The  same  joint  pro- 
fession is  made  in  prayer  and  praise.  Thus,  according  to  the  practice 
of  occasional  communion,  on  one  Sabbath,  our  profession  of  the  chris- 
tian religion  is  the  same  with  that  of  those  who  adhere  to  the  Westmin- 
ster Confession  and  the  Secession  Testimony :  but  the  next  Sabbath, 
our  profession  is  the  same  with  that  of  another  church  ;  which  is,  in 
some  respect,  directly  contrary  to  our  former  profession.  Such  con- 
tradictory professions  are  no  more  reconcileable  to  sound  morality,  than 
contradictory  oaths. 

Alex.  Christians  are  commanded  '*  to  prove  all  things,"  2  Thess.  v. 

*  When  the  evils  of  a  particular  church  are  such  as  do  not  render  secession  from 
her  communion  necessary,  then,  it  is  our  duty  to  have  communion  with  her  in  her 
public  ordinances  :  a  testimony  being  maintained  against  these  evils  in  the  way  of 
communion  with  her.  But  when  we  are  justly  in  a  state  of  secession  from  a  par- 
ticular church,  we  cannot  join  in  her  public  ordinances,  without  partaking  of  her 
sin:  in  the  first  place,  because  according  to  the  import  of  our  secession,  we  cannot 
maintain  a  faithful  testimony  against  her  evils  in  a  communion  with  her :  and,  in 
the  second  place,  because  our  communion  with  her,  in  her  public  ordinances,  im- 
plies a  choice  of  the  profession  according  to  which  her  ordinances  are  administer- 
ed, as  preferable  to  any  diflferent  or  opposite  profession;  and  even  to  that  which 
we  make  in  our  secession :  for  where  therejare  diflferent  professions,  it  is  evidently 
our  duty  to  choose  the  purest ;  and  to  attend  on  that  administration  of  Divine  or- 
dinances, which  is  according  to  the  profession  which  we  prefer.  What  is  here 
meant,  is  no  more  than  that  our  christian  walk  should  be  according  to  our  chris- 
tian profession. 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  85 

21 :  and  therefore,  we  should  hear  ministers  in  different  persuasions,  in 
order  to  judge  for  ourselves. 

RuF.  The  end  for  which  we  are  to  prove  all  things,  particularly  for 
which  we  should  examine  the  various  professions  made  of  the  christian 
religion,  is,  that  we  may  espouse  one  of  them,  and  hold  it  fast,  as  being 
truly  good.  Some  pretend  to  be  always  proving,  to  be  ever  learning, 
without  ever  coming  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.  While  this  is  the 
case,  they  cannot  sincerely  embrace  any  profession  of  religion.  But 
they  that  are  in  full  communion  with  any  particular  church,  profess, 
that  they  have  found  the  truth  ;  and  that  they  now  intend,  through  grace, 
to  hold  fast  the  profession  of  it :  and  therefore  they  cannot  consistently 
on  pretence  of  seeking  the  truth,  join  in  another  communion,  making  a 
contradictory  profession.  A  person's  steadfastness  in  the  jorofession 
of  Divine  truth,  is  confirmed  by  the  daily  exercises  of  searching  the 
scriptures,  of  meditation,  and  fervent  prayer  for  the  teaching  of  the 
Holy  Spirit ;  and  not  by  following  the  teachers  of  different  and  oppo- 
site doctrines.  It  may  be  farther  observed,  that  the  hearing  of  one  or 
a  few  sermons  preached,  by  some  ministers  of  a  particular  church,  is 
not  a  sufficient  ground  to  proceed  upon,  in  forming  a  judgment  of  the 
doctrine  held  by  that  church.  For  we  may  hear  many  of  their  ser- 
mons, in  which  none  of  the  distinguishing  tenets  of  their  communion 
are  candidly  stated.  Every  religious  society,  called  a  church,  has,  or 
ought  to  have,  a  declaration  of  the  doctrine,  worship,  and  discipline, 
by  which  it  is  distinguished  from  other  churches.  By  such  a  declara- 
tion, the  sentiments  of  a  society  being  known,  we  may  compare  them 
with  the  scripture,  and  judge  for  ourselves,  how  far  they  agree  or  dis- 
agree with  that  supreme  standard.  According  to  a  judgment  thus 
formed,  we  ought,  or  ought  not  to  have  communion  with  a  particular 
church,  in  her  public  ordinances.  I  may  add,  that  the  members  of  a 
particular  church,  cannot  warrantably  acknowledge  any  one  as  in  the 
regular  exercise  of  the  ministerial  office,  before  they  receive  and  ac- 
knowledge him  as  in  full  church  communion  with  them.  For,  in  no 
well  regulated  society,  is  any  person  acknowledged  as  an  officer,  be- 
fore he  be  fully  received  as  a  member.  Nothing  can  be  more  prepos- 
terous, than  pretending  to  hear  one  as  a  faithful  minister,  and  yet  to 
refuse  to  join  in  sacramental  communion  with  him,  on  account  of  his 
public  profession. 

Alex.  You  cannot  deny,  that  the  ministers  of  other  churches  though 
they  disagree  with  you  in  some  of  the  peculiarities  of  your  profession 
of  the  faith,  are  ministers  of  Christ.  He  hath  sent  them  to  preach  ; 
and  therefore  you  ought  to  hear  them. 

Bup.  Unless  by  the  term  ijeculiarities,  you  mean  undoubted  truths 
of  God's  word,  you  wander  from  the  point  in  question.  With  regard 
to  ministers  whom  Christ  hath  sent,  I  ought  to  hear  them,  if  they 
adhere  to  their  commission.  But,  if  they  openly  avow  their  determi- 
nation to  teach  what  is  certainly   known  to  be  contrary  to  their  com- 


86  ALEXANDER    AND    EUFUS. 

mission,  I  ought  not  to  hear  them.  If  they  bring  any  other  doctrine  ; 
if  they  cause  divisions  and  offences,  contrary  to  the  doctrine  which  we 
have  learned,  and  which  ought  to  be  held  by  the  whole  catholic  church, 
we  are  to  avoid  them.  Christ  sent  them  to  deliver  his  word  faithful- 
ly :  but  if  they  are  teachers  of  error,  according  to  the  description 
which  has  just  now  been  given  to  those  who  ought  to  be  accounted 
such,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  church  to  censure  them  ;  and,  if  obstinate, 
to  depose  them.  If  the  error,  or  disorder,  in  which  a  public  teacher 
professedly  and  obstinately  persists,  be  such  as  we  would  not  hesitate 
to  censure  in  a  private  member  of  the  church,  our  overlooking  such 
obstinacy  in  him,  on  account  of  a  multitude  being  involved  in  the  same 
evil,  and  on  account  of  his  eminent  reputation,  cannot  be  acquitted  of 
that  partiality  and  undue  respect  of  persons,  which  the  scripture  con- 
demns. It  is  too  little  considered  by  the  occasional  hearers  of  any 
minister,  in  whose  public  profession,  (or  in  that  of  the  church  to  which 
he  belongs,)  they  own  there  are  grievous  errors ;  that,  according  to 
his  profession,  he  must  make  the  propagation  of  these  errors  one  end 
of  his  public  administrations ;  and  that,  however  much  truth  he  may 
declare,  he  must  either  shun  to  declare  the  whole  truth,  or  contradict 
his  own  profession  ;  both  of  which  are  criminal  in  a  called  and  sent 
minister  of  Jesus  Christ.  In  this  view,  his  character,  as  a  called  and 
sent  minister  of  Christ,  greatly  aggrvaates,  instead  of  extenuating,  his 
unfaithfulness.  The  Lord  prohibited  the  people  of  Judah  to  hearken 
to  the  words  of  the  prophets,  not  only  because  they  were  not  sent 
but  because  they  did  not  stand  in,  nor  adhere  to  his  counsel,  Jerem. 
xxiii.  22. 

■  §  23.  Alex.  O  Rufus.  this  catholic  communion,  and  one  year  of 
love,  will  do  more  towards  setting  us  mutually  right,  where  we  are 
wrong,  than  a  millennium  of  wrangling.  * 

KuF.  Love  to  God,  should  regulate  love  to  our  brethren.  They, 
who  love  God,  must  love  the  truths  of  his  word,  by  which  he  reveals 
himself,  not  only  as  the  God  of  nature,  but  as  the  God  of  grace  :  and 
they  must  love  his  ordinances,  which  bear  the  stamp  of  his  authority 
and  diffuse  the  savor  of  his  name.  These  truths  and  ordinances,  so 
far  as  they  are  preserved  pure  and  entire  in  the  profession  of  a  partic- 
ular church,  serve  to  advance  the  declarative  glory  of  God ;  of  which 
glory,  the  contrary  errors  tend  to  rob  him :  and  therefore,  love  to  God, 
must  lead  his  people  to  delight  in  his  truths  and  ordinances,  and  to  be 
zealous  against  the  contrary  errors  and  corruptions  ;  and  against  any 
toleration  of  them  in  his  church.  No  injury  that  a  true  lover  of  God 
suffers  in  his  worldly  interest  of  reputation,  gives  him  so  much  con- 
cern and  sorrow,  as  men's  opposition  to  the  truths  and  institutions  of 
Jesus  Christ.  How  then  can  he  be  reconciled  to  a  sacramental  com- 
munion with  those  who,  according  to  his  own  public  profession,  are  ob- 

*  Plea,  &c.  page  347. 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  87 

stinately  persisting  in  an  avowed  opposition  to  any  of  them  ?  ^'  By  this" 
says  the  apostle  John,  "  we  know  that  we  love  the  children  of  God, when 
we  love  God,  and  keep  his  commandments."  Hence,  it  is  evident,  that 
whatever  is  contrary  to  true  love  to  God,  is  also  contrary  to  true  love 
to  our  brethren.  Besides  true  love  to  our  brethren,  requires  us  to 
suspend  our  intimate  communion  with  them,  whenever  that  communion 
tends  to  support  and  encourage  them  in  what  is  sinful.  It  requires  us 
to  rebuke  them  for  their  sins  ;  Lev.  xix.  17,  "  Thou  shalt  not  hate  thy 
brother  in  thy  heart :  thou  shalt  in  any  wise  rebuke  thy  neighbor  ; 
thou  shalt  not  suffer  sin  upon  him."  If  love  to  the  brethren  requires 
the  rebuking  of  a  private  offence,  it  must  much  more  require  the  re- 
buking of  a  public  one :  for,  in  the  former  case,  love  to  the  offender 
himself  requires  it ;  but,  in  the  latter,  love  to  many  others  renders  it 
necessary.  If  after  a  rebuke,  or  a  public  testimony  of  the  truth 
against  his  sin,  he  continues  obstinate  ;  love  to  our  brethren  must  then 
prompt  us,  while  this  is  the  case,  to  decline  communion  with  him  :  and 
on  supposition  that  many  persons,  and  even  many  churches,  are  in- 
volved in  the  same  offence,  love  to  the  brethren,  as  well  as  to  God, 
will  direct  us  to  the  same  line  of  conduct. 

Alex.  If  you  rebuke  those  whom  you  call  erroneous,  they  will  re- 
buke you ;  and  there  will  be  wrangling  without  end.  Catholic  com- 
munion, on  the  contrary,  breathes  nothing  but  love. 

RuF.  In  any  case,  wherein  the  word  of  God  directs  us  to  rebuke  our 
brother,  we  are  by  no  means  to  neglect  it,  from  an  appehension,  that 
it  will  be  opposed.  The  duty  of  being  valiant  for  the  truth,  implies 
men's  opposition  to  it.  If,  by  wrangling,  you  mean  the  wrath  of  man 
and  other  irregular  passions,  that  men  discover  in  disputes  about  reli- 
gion ;  it  is  no  doubt,  to  be  condemned,  and  guarded  against  with  the 
utmost  vigilance.  But  if,  under  the  notion  of  wrangling,  you  should 
proscribe  all  endeavors  to  point  out  the  evil  of  the  erroneous  opinions 
and  corrupt  practices,  by  which  our  fellow  church  members  are  in 
danger  of  being  seduced  from  any  part  of  their  christian  profession,  I 
cannot  help  thinking,  that  you  would  only  give  a  reproachful  name  to 
a  duty  abundantly  warranted  by  the  precepts  and  examples  of  scrip- 
ture. It  is  not  the  duty  of  ministers,  not  only  to  exhort,  but  to  con- 
vince gainsayers  ?  Did  not  the  true  prophets  constantly  testify  against 
those  who  saw  false  burdens  and  causes  of  banishment  ?  Did  not 
Christ,  in  his  sermon  on  the  mount,  and  through  his  whole  personal 
ministry,  set  himself  to  confute  the  errors  which  then  prevailed  among 
the  Jews  ?  Every  good  commentator  allows,  that  the  epistles  of  the 
New  Testament  cannot  be  well  understood  without  attending  to  the 
errors,  which  are  therein  alluded  to  and  refuted. 

It  is  too  evident  to  be  denied,  that  sacramental  communion  with 
those  who  offend  their  brethren  and  sin  against  God  by  an  erroneous 
profession,  or  a  superstitious  form  of  public  worship,  is  in  direct  oppo- 
sition to  the  scriptural  way  of  expressing  love  to  such  offenders  by 


88  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

rebuking  them,  and  not  suffering  sin  upon  them.  Faithful  are  the 
wounds  of  a  church,  that  is  honestly  and  impartially  adhering  to  a 
scriptural  profession  ;  for  every  one  knows  what  he  has  to  expect  from 
such  a  church.  But  the  kisses  of  catholic  communion  are  most  deceit- 
ful, because  it  cannot  be  known,  according  to  the  accouut,  which  the 
followers  of  this  scheme  give  of  it,  how  far  they  adhere  to  any  deter- 
minate religious  profession,  either  of  the  church  of  which  they  are 
called  members,  or  of  any  other  church,  with  which  they  communi- 
cate. They  talk  indeed  of  adhering  to  the  essentials  ;  but  then  they 
themselves  confess,  that  they  cannot  determine  with  precision  what 
these  essentials  are.  This  scheme  of  catholic  communion  is  for  em- 
balming and  preserving  manifold  devisions  and  offences,  which  tend 
to  the  ruin  of  the  church  of  Christ ;  for  it  prohibits  the  use  of  several 
remedies  against  them,  of  Christ's  appointment ;  such,  as  withdrawing 
from  those  who  cause  them,  or  inflicting  on  them  the  censures  of  the 
church.  They,  who  wilfully  neglect  these  means,  have  little  or  no 
ground  to  expect,  that  the  Lord  Christ  will  afford  relief  by  other 
means  of  their  own  devising. 

Alex.  By  joining  with  a  church  in  sacramental  communion,  you 
will  get  an  access  to  her  confidence,  which  will  be  denied  you,  while 
you  decline  her  communion.  Acknowledge  and  commend  her  excel- 
lencies, and  you  may  speak  to  her  freely,  and  perhaps  effectually,  of 
her  deficiencies.  The  system  of  declining  communion  with  a  church, 
for  errors  and  corruptions  not  essential,  never  did  any  good  yet.* 

RuF,  I  own^  I  am  far  from  thinking,  that  a  sacramental  communion 
with  a  church,  that  opposes  any  part  of  our  scriptural  profession  of  the 
faith,  tends  to  reconcile  her  to  that  profession.  On  the  contrary ;  the 
prejudice  of  her  members  against  our  profession  will  be  increased, 
when  they  see  us  acting,  as  if  their  opposition  to  it,  were  no  offence  to 
us.  Such  conduct  naturally  leads  them  to  conclude,  that  we  ourselves 
do  not  sincerely  believe  the  articles  of  our  public  profession  which 
they  oppose,  or,  what  often  comes  to  much  the  same  thing,  that  we 
reckon  them  to  he  of  no  great  importance.  Yes,  Alexander,  in  order 
to  have  peace  with  other  churches,  let  us  acknowledge  their  excellen- 
cies ;  let  us  sacrifice  to  so  valuable  an  end,  our  worldly  interests, 
honors,  and  pleasures  ;  and  also,  our  own  opinions,  feelings^  and 
habits  ;  but  not  one  jot  or  tittle  of  that  scriptural  profession,which  we 
have  embraced ;  that  sacred  depositum,  or  trust,  which  the  Lord 
Christ  hath  committed  to  us  :  particularly,  let  us  not  go  the  Lord's 
table  in  order  to  tell  the  church  and  the  world,  that  we  make  so  lit- 
tle account  of  that  holy  profession  which  we  have  solemnly  espous- 
ed, and  which,  as  yet,  we  see  no  cause  to  retract,  that  we  reckon  the 
most  open  and  obstinate  opposition  to  various  articles  of  it,  no  such 
offence  as  renders  reconciUation  with  the  offender  any  way  necessary 

*Plea,  &c.,  pages  345,  347. 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  89 

in  order  to  sacramental  communion.  You  say,  that  declining  from 
the  communion  of  a  church,  on  account  of  errors  and  corruptions  not 
essential,  never  did  any  good :  do  you  mean,  that  people  do  so  well 
when  they  go  along  with  persons  or  churches  in  their  errors  and  cor- 
ruptions, as  when  they  refuse  to  do  so  ;  though  it  is  evident,  that,  in 
such  refusal,  they  obey  the  Divine  admonition  :  "  If  sinners  entice  thee, 
consent  thou  not  ?"  Do  you  suppose,  that  the  people  of  Judah's  declin- 
ing commmunion  with  the  church  of  the  ten  separated  tribes,  did  no 
good,  while  the  errors  and  corruptions  of  these  tribes,  were  not  so  es- 
sential, as  to  unchurch  them,  or  to  render  it  impossible  for  any  of  God's 
people  to  remain  in  the  pale  of  their  church  ?  Did  the  retiring  of  the 
Leonists  to  the  valleys  of  Piedmont,  long  before  the  height  of  Anti- 
christ's reign,  do  no  good  ?  Did  the  conduct  of  our  forefathers,  in  de- 
clining the  communion  of  the  Episcopal  church,  do  no  good  ? 

Alex.  It  has  been  said,  that,  while  you  invite  the  friends  of  Christ 
to  his  table,  not  one  in  ten  thousand  of  them  that  love  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  endeavor  to  walk,  as  he  walked,  comes  within  your  scope ; 
for  all  your  descriptions  of  Christians  are  only  for  christians  of  your 
own  sect.* 

KuF.  This  accusation  proceeds  upon  a  supposition  which  has  been 
already  considered,  namely,  that  it  is  unwarrantable  for  a  particular 
church  in  any  case  to  refuse  real  christians  a  seat  at  the  Lord's  table. 
We  have  seen,  that  this  supposition  is  not  universally  true.  You  rep- 
resent such  refusal  as  inconsistent  with  the  invitation  that  is  given  to 
the  friends  of  Christ  to  come  to  his  table.  But,  as  has  been  observed 
already,  that  invitation  directs  them  to  come  according  to  the  due  or- 
der. One  thing  belonging  to  that  order  is  the  removal  of  offences. 
Our  Lord's  direction  is  plain.  "  If  thou  bring  thy  gift  to  the  altar, 
and  there  remember,  that  thy  brother  hath  aught  against  thee  :  leave 
there  thy  gift  before  the  altar  ;  and  then  come  and  offer  thy  gift;" 
Math.  V.  23,  24.  If  the  observation  of  this  rule  be  necessary  in  the 
case  of  private  or  public  offences ;  it  cannot  be  less  but  more  so  in  the 
case  of  such  as  are  public,  the  evil  of  which  is  greater.  Nor  may  a 
particular  church  dispense  with  the  observation  of  this  order  on  ac- 
count of  the  apparent  piety  or  great  multitude  of  the  offenders.  She 
is  to  be  faithful ;  she  is  to  do  nothing  in  partiality.  The  ministers  of 
a  particular  church,  however,  are  under  no  temptation,  from  their 
steadfast  adherence  to  a  scriptural  profession,  to  give  such  descrip- 
tions of  christians,  as  are  applicable  to  none  but  those  with  whom  they 
have  sacramental  communion  :  first  because  the  description  of  a  true 
christian  is  not  limited  to  what  comes  under  the  cognisance  of  the  vis- 
ible church  ;  but  includes  the  heart :  and,  secondly,  because  the  real 
christian,  while  in  the  present  militant  state,  is  to  be  described  as  im- 
perfect 'j  and  therefore  liable  to  such  failures  and  offences  as  are  ground 

*Plea,&c.,  page  374. 


90  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

of  church  censure.  With  regard  to  the  reproachful  name  of  sect,  it 
ought  not  to  be  given  to  a  particular  church  on  account  of  a  public 
profession,  which  has  nothing  but  what  is  agreeable  to  the  word  of 
God,  and  what  ought  to  be  held  by  the  whole  catholic  church. 

§  24.  Alex.  The  author,  whose  opinion  I  have  represented  as  my 
own  in  this  and  former  conversations,  observes,  that  the  opposers  of 
catholic  communion  seem  to  be  accurate  disputants  on  the  heads  of 
sectarian  collision.  Their  party-soul  is  narrowed  doY^m :  all  its  per- 
ceptions are  directed  to  those  things  that  put  christians  asunder,  in- 
stead of  those  things  which  should  bring  them  together  ;  and  which, 
for  their  importance,  may  not,  without  degradation,  be  named  in  com- 
pany with  the  causes  of  their  disunion.  With  one  party,  the  watch- 
word is  our  excellent,  our  apostolical  church ;  with  another,  the 
mode  of  baptism;  with  a  third,  the  solemn  league  and  covenant; 
with  a  fourth,  the  burgess  oath;  with  a  fifth,  psalmody. '^ 

RuF.  With  regard  to  the  remark  about  the  particular  attention  some 
persons  pay  to  the  causes  of  the  differences  among  christians,  I  ol> 
serve,  that,  like  many  other  things  in  human  conduct,  it  will  bear 
either  a  favorable  or  an  unfavorable  construction.  That  which  this 
author  puts  upon  the  endeavors,  that  some  have  used  to  point  out  the 
causes  of  religious  differences,  is  most  uncharitable :  for  he  supposes 
their  design  is  no  other  than  the  infernal  one  of  continuing  and  in- 
creasing those  differences,  and  of  rendering  all  other  churches,  besides 
their  own,  as  odious  as  possible.  Might  he  not  have  allowed,  that 
some  have  been  influenced  in  speaking  and  writing  concerning  the 
causes  of  these  differences  by  a  sincere  desire  of  contributing  to  the  re- 
moval of  them  ?  This  is  the  more  probable,  if  they  were  in  any  degree, 
as  he  says,  they  seem  to  be,  accurate  disputants.  Does  not  common 
sense  lead  men  to  make  some  enquiry  into  the  causes  of  a  difference 
between  private  persons,  as  often  a  necessary  means  of  removing  it  ? 
and  may  not  the  love  of  Divine  truth  prompt  one  to  refute  small  errors, 
(if  any  errors  in  matters  of  religion  may  be  so  called)  as  well  as  great  ? 
We  may  not  always  conclude,  that  it  is  unnecessary,  or  blameable,  to 
refute  the  error  of  a  person  or  people,  because  the  truths  they  hold, 
are  more  numerous  and  important,  than  those  which  they  deny.  The 
scripture,  sometimes  represents  the  danger  of  one  evil  as  very  great. 
''He  that  offendeth  in  one  point  is  guilty  of  all."  James  ii.  10.  "Who- 
soever shall  break  one  of  these  least  commandments,  and  teach  men  so, 
shall  be  called  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  Math,  v,  19.  Hence, 
if  there  were  but  one  thing  in  the  profession  of  a  particular  church, 
contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  those  who  discern  the  evil  ought  faith- 
fully to  warn  her  of  it :  and  such  as  endeavor  to  discharge  this  duty, 
are  more  friendly  to  such  a  church,  than  those,  who,  by  flattery,  encour- 
age her  to  hold  fast  her  idol.     Some  critics  are  justly  recommended  for 

•^  Plea,*  &c.,  page  376. 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  91 

their  method  of  teaching  us  to  understand  the  rules  of  good  writing,  by- 
pointing  out  the  faults  of  the  most  celebrated  authors.  So,  instead  of 
being  reproached  as  doing  hurt,  they  ought  to  be  considered  as  render- 
ing a  service  to  any  particular  church,  who  candidly  warn  her  of  any 
deviation  from  God's  word  in  her  profession,  or  avowed  practice- 
With  regard  to  the  watch-words  you  mentioned,  it  might  have  been 
added,  with  a  sixth  party,  the  ivatch-word  is  occasional  catholic  com- 
munion, or  local  pecuharities.  But  one  should  think,  there  would  be 
more  philanthropy  in  any  serious  endeavor  to  show  men  the  good  or 
evil  of  one  or  two  such  objects  of  public  attention,  than  in  such  a  deri- 
sive enumeration  of  them,  insinuating,  that  they  are  all  much  alike. 
I  can  scarcely  forbear  adding  one  remark,  which  is,  that  a  minister  of 
the  presbyterian  denomination  might  have  spared  the  Solemn  League 
and  Covenant ;  the  declared  object  of  which  was  the  reformation  of 
religion  in  Britian  and  Ireland,  according  to  the  word  of  God  and  the 
example  of  the  best  reformed  churches ;  the  same  reformation  which  is 
described  in  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  and  the  larger  and 
shorter  catechisms.  It  is  a  pity  to  see  a  Presbyterian  minister  public- 
ly countenancing  that  malignant  generation,  who,  from  the  celebrated 
Hudibras  do\^m  to  Dobbin  in  the  tavern,  have  made  the  Solemn  League 
and  Covenant  the  subject  of  ther  profane  banter  and  ridicule.  But, 
indeed,  the  nature  and  design  of  that  engagement  was  quite  contrary 
to  the  scheme  of  catholic  communion,  defended  by  the  author  of  the 
passage  you  have  recited.  The  object  of  that  oath  was  the  nearest 
conjunction  and  uniformity  of  the  church  of  Christ  in  doctrine  wor- 
ship, and  goverment;  whereas  the  catholic  communion,  for  which 
this  author  strenuously  contends,  implies  the  church's  toleration  of 
multiformity  in  all  these  respects. 

Alex.  This  author  represents  a  zealous  member  of  a  nameless  judi- 
catory, contending  for  a  testimony,  over  and  above  the  recognised  con- 
fession of  faith,  as  saying,  "What  difference  will  there  be  between  you 
and  the  General  Assembly,  if  you  have  not  a  testimony."* 

RuF.  The  propriety  or  impropriety  of  such  a  saying  would  be  better 
understood,  if  we  knew  the  occasion,  on  which  it  was  uttered.  It  is 
probable,  that  the  person  was  speaking  of  some  body  of  people  pro- 
fessing adherence  to  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  and  yet  con- 
sidering themselves  as  having  a  separate  communion  from  the  general 
assembly  professing  adherence  to  the  same  confession.  Supposing  a 
person  to  be  either  a  stranger  to  the  history  of  the  two  bodies,  or  to 
be  desiring  their  union ;  one  should  think,  he  might  be  naturally  led 
to  ask,  what  declaration  had  been  given,  of  the  reason  of  the  differ- 
ence between  them  ?  Perhaps  he  meant  no  more  than  to  say,  that  there 
ought  to  be  no  division,  or  at  least  that  it  should  not  be  continued,  if 
there  was  no  declared  reason  for  it.     If  this  was  all,  it  was  no  more 

*  Plea,  &c.,  page  375. 


92  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

than  a  dictate  of  common  sense ;  which  should  have  offended  no  body ; 
and  least  of  all,  those  who  affect  to  distinguish  themselves  by  their 
zeal  for  the  union  of  the  churches. 

Alex.  This  author  insists,  that  sectarian  communion  is  a  practical 
rejection  of  the  unity  of  the  church  at  large  ;  and  breaks  up  the  chari- 
ty which  ought  to  subsist  between  all  the  members  of  the  body  of 
Christ.  Sectarian  zeal,  he  says,  chills  the  warmth  of  the  catholic 
charity;  tends  to  expel  from  the  churches  a  sense  of  their  common  in- 
terest; makes  them  withhold  that  support  which  they  ought  to  afford 
one  another;  hinders  them  from  co-operating  together  in  promoting 
the  kingdom  of  God  :  and  puts  into  the  mouth  of  the  infidel  that  bitter 
taunt;  "These  christians  have  just  religion  enough  to  hate  one  another 
heartily."* 

RuF.  The  terra  sectarian,  the  favorite  watch- word  of  this  author, 
tends  to  divert  the  attention  from  the  matter  in  dispute.  The  question 
is,  whether  a  church's  refusing  to  have  sacramental  communion  with 
such  as  openly  avow  their  opposition  to  one  or  more  articles  of  her 
scriptural  profession  has  such  effects  as  are  now  mentioned?  Does 
this  refusal  break  up  the  unity  of  the  church  at  large  ?  By  no  means. 
The  truths  of  God's  word  constitute  the  bond  of  unity  in  the  catholic 
church ;  so  far  as  they  are  publicly  professed  and  preserved  in  the 
doctrine,  worship,  and  government  of  the  several  particular  churches. 
Hence  it  is  evident,  that  what  breaks  up  the  peace  of  the  catholic 
church,  is  not  the  faithfulness  of  particular  churches  in  refusing,  but 
their  laxness  in  granting  sacramental  communion  to  the  avowed  op- 
posers  of  undoubted  truths  of  God's  word,  as  exhibited  in  the  public 
profession  of  any  of  the  churches,  every  instance  of  this  laxness  tending 
to  weaken  the  bond  of  their  union.  Does  refusing  sacramental  com- 
munion with  the  avowed  opposers  of  the  truths  of  God,  publicly  pro- 
fessed by  a  particular  church,  chill  the  warmth  of  love  to  the  catholic 
church  ?  surely  no :  for  it  is  manifestly  the  interest  of  the  catholic 
church  that  every  particular  church  should  hold  these  truths  in  her 
public  profession,  and  not  tolerate  opposition  to  them  in  her  commu- 
nion. Hence  it  must  give  sincere  pleasure  to  a  lover  of  the  catholic 
church  to  see  a  particular  church  uniformly  faithful  in  refusing  church 
communion  to  open  opposers  of  any  one  of  the  truths  of  God  contained 
in  her  public  profession;  as  it  would  give  pleasure  to  the  patriotic 
citizen  of  the  United  States,  to  see  a  particular  state  refusing  to  har- 
bor any  avowed  enemy  to  the  true  interest  of  all  the  states.  Does 
the  faithfulness  of  a  particular  churchy  in  refusing  to  have  sacramen- 
tal communion  with  the  open  opposers  of  any  article  of  her  scriptural 
profession,  hinder  her  from  using  any  means  appointed  in  the  word  of 
God  for  promoting  his  spiritual  kingdom  ?  This  is  so  far  from  being 
the  case,  that  this  refusal  is  supposed  and  implied  in  the  use  of  several 

*  Plea,  &c.,  pages  331,  332,  &c. 


ALEXANDER    AND  RUFUS.  93 

proper  means  for  that  end ;  such  as,  a  church's  contending  for  the 
whole  truth  exhibited  in  her  public  profession  ;  the  judicial  assertion 
of  the  truths  of  God's  word,  and  the  judicial  condemnation  of  the  con- 
trary errors ;  committing  the  word  to  faithful  men,  who  will  teach 
others  the  whole  truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  according  to  the  pub- 
lic profession  or  testimony  of  the  church,  in  due  subordination  to  the 
holy  scriptures;  recognising  the  solemn  engagements,  which  the 
church  has  come  under  to  preserve  whatever  measure  of  reformation 
has  been  attained.  These  means,  which  are  certainly  appointed  in  the 
word  of  God,  cannot  be  sincerely  used  by  any  particular  church,  unless 
she  be  careful,  that  such  as  are  avowed  and  obstinate  opposers  of  any 
article  of  her  scriptural  profession,  may  not  be  received  into,  or  con- 
tinued in  her  communion.  Whilst  these  means,  of  our  Lord's  appoint- 
ment, are  wilfully  neglected,  we  have  little  ground  to  expect  the  Di- 
vine blessing  on  such  other  means  as  men  may  pretend,  to  use  for  the 
advancement  of  his  spiritual  kingdom. 

With  regard  to  the  sarcasm  of  the  infidels,  it  cannot  be  of  much  au- 
thority in  determining  what  is  right  or  wrong  in  the  matter  of  church 
communion ;  since  they  are,  no  competent  judges,  either  of  the  differ- 
ent persuasions  of  professing  christians ;  or  of  the  scriptural  ways  in 
which  they  ought  to  express  their  love  to  one  another.  It  is  only  in- 
consistencies in  the  conduct  of  christians  with  their  public  profession, 
that  gives  the  infidels  an  advantage  against  them.  Among  which  in- 
consistencies I  cannot  help  ranking  the  sacramental  communion  which 
your  author  defends.  A  late  historian  of  modern  Europe,  having  ob- 
served, that,  in  consequence  of  the  union  between  the  two  kingdoms 
of  England  and  Scotland  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Anne,  the  Scots  agreed, 
that  the  members  whom  they  were  to  send  to  the  British  parliament, 
should  receive  the  sacrament  according  to  the  rules  of  the  church  of 
England,  censures  the  meanness  and  inconsistency  of  such  a  compli- 
ance.* 

Alex.  It  is  necessary  to  conclude  our  conversation  at  present,  our 
attention  being  called  to  other  engagements. 

§  25.  RuF.  Before  we  part,  permit  me  express  in  a  few  words  the 
result  of  our  conversation  on  this  scheme  of  catholic,  or  rather  latitu- 
dinarian  communion. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  a  sectarian  communion.  Its  existence  sup- 
poses that  there  are  sects  and  parties  in  the  catholic  church  ;  and  that 
the  variety  of  men's  opinions,  habits  and  feelings,  is  sufficient  to  justi- 
fy the  continuance  of  them.  Scriptural  sacramental  communion  ad- 
mits of  no  sects  ;  requiring  all  the  partakers  of  it  to  be  one  bread,  one 
body  ;  perfectly  joined  together  in  the  same  mind  and  in  the  same 
judgment. 

In  the  second  place,  it  is  an  unfaithful  and  dishonest  scheme.     It  is 

*  See  Russel's  History  of  Modern  Europe. 


94  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

unfaithful  to  the  Lord  Jesus  ;  for  under  the  pretext  of  expressing  love 
to  him  at  his  table,  it  regards  the  denial  of  some  of  his  truths  or  insti- 
tutions, however  openly  and  obstinately  persisted  in,  as  a  trivial  matter, 
deserving  no  church  censure.  When  the  advocates  for  this  scheme 
represent  the  truths  and  institutions  of  Christ,  that  are  publicly  oppos- 
ed by  corrupt  churches  as  sectarian  and  local  peculiarities,  they  are 
chargeable  with  great  unfaithfulness  to  the  Lord  Christ,  to  these 
churches  and  to  the  whole  catholic  church.  They  are  chargeable  with 
attempting  to  heal  the  wound  of  God's  people  slightly,  saying,  peace, 
peace,  while  there  is  no  peace. 

Thirdly,  it  is  a  backsliding  scheme.  There  is  nothing  more  incum- 
bent on  a  particular  church  than  steadfastness  in  maintaining  all  the 
articles  of  Divine  truth  stated  in  her  confession  and  testimony.  But 
as  soon  as  the  practice  obtains  in  any  particular  church  of  having  sa- 
cramental communion  with  the  open  and  obstinate  opposers  of  any  of 
these  articles,  that  church,  thereby,  falls  from  her  steadfastness,  and  is 
chargeable,  in  some  measure,  with  apostacy. 

Alex.  The  declension  of  a  particular  church  may  be  only  such  as 
consists  with  holding  the  head.  What  she  declines  to  contend  for, 
may  be  a  non-essential,  which  ought  not  to  hinder  sacramental  com- 
munion. 

RuF.  But  is  it  sufficient,  that  a  church  and  her  members  hold  the 
head  ?  An  inspired  apostle  tells  us,  that  it  is  not ;  it  is  also  necessary, 
that  the  whole  body,  by  joints  and  bands,  having  nourishment  minis- 
tered and  knit  together,  should  increase  with  the  increase  of  God. 
Christ  is  saying  to  each  particular  church,  "Hold  fast  that  which  thou 
hast :  let  no  man  take  thy  crown  :"  be  on  thy  guard  against  such  as 
would  seduce  thee  from  thy  steadfastness,  which  is  thy  crown,  thy 
true  honor.  A  particular  church  is  bound  to  hold  fast,  not  only  the 
essentials,  but  all  things  belonging  to  that  conformity  to  the  word  of 
God,  which  she  has  attained. 

Fourthly,  it  is  a  selfish  scheme  ;  as  it  directs  men,  in  their  church 
capacity,  to  hold  the  truths  and  duties  exhibited  in  their  public  pro- 
fession and  testimony,  according  as  they  are  judged  to  be  necessary 
to  their  own  salvation ;  while  the  denial  of  other  truths  and  duties, 
according  to  this  scheme,  exposes  to  no  church  censure  ;  however  evi- 
dently those  other  truths  and  duties  bear  the  stamp  of  God's  authority, 
and  tend  to  promote  his  declarative  glory.  So  that  self,  under  the 
name  of  what  is  necessary  to  salvation,  seems  to  be  the  principle,  rule 
and  end  of  this  latitudinarian  scheme  of  sacramental  communion. 

Fifthly,  it  is  a  Deistical  scheme.  Deism  denies,  that  the  evil  of 
error  in  religion,  lies  in  its  opposition  to  the  authority  of  God,  speak- 
ing in  his  word.  But,  that  this  evil  is  greatly  extenuated,  if  not  de- 
nied, by  the  latitudinarian  scheme  of  sacramental  communion,  must  be 
evident  to  every  serious  enquirer.  For,  first,  there  are  many  errors 
or  tenets  acknowledged  to  be  contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  which  this 


\ 

ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  95 

scheme  does  not  allow  to  be  censurable  ;  or,  however  obstinately  per- 
sisted in,  to  be  any  bar  in  the  way  of  sacramental  communion ;  such 
errors  being  thus  supposed  to  have  little  or  no  evil  in  them  ;  though 
they  have  the  first  and  radical  evil  that  is  in  any  error  in  matters  of 
religion.  Secondly,  according  to  this  scheme,  the  profession  of  so 
many  truths  as  are  judged  essential  to  men's  salvation,  is  a  sufficient 
warrant  for  sacramental  communion  with  any  church  and  her  mem- 
bers ;  notwithstanding  their  obstinate  attachment  to  ever  so  many 
errors  in  opposition  to  other  truths  :  as  if  there  were  no  evil  in  error, 
as  it  is  contraiy  to  the  word  of  God,  but  only  as  it  is  contrary  to  utility. 
This  is  just  the  scheme  of  the  Deists  ;  who  pretend  to  hold  such  things 
as  they  find  in  the  Bible  to  be  true  and  useiul ;  allowing,  at  the  same 
time,  no  more  authority  to  the  Bible,  than  to  any  human  composition. 
The  very  supposition,  that  there  are  some  truths  in  the  scriptures,  the 
open  denial  of  which,  deserves  no  church  censure,  is  inconsistent  with 
the  reverence  due  to  these  sacred  writings. 

Sixthly,  it  is  an  impious  scheme.  It  is  so,  as  it  tends  to  diminish 
the  impression  in  men's  minds,  of  the  obligation  they  are  under  from 
God's  authority,  to  receive  and  maintain  all  the  doctrines  and  duties 
taught  in  his  word  ;  while  it  represents  some  of  them  as  of  so  little 
importance,  that  church  members  may  despise  and  reject  them  in  the 
most  open  and  obstinate  manner,  without  being  liable  to  any  church 
censure.  It  is  so,  as  it  justifies  and  approves  a  dissimulation  far  more 
culpable  than  that  for  which  Paul  withstood  Peter  to  the  face  ;  because, 
in  that  respect,  he  walked  not  uprightly  according  to  the  truth  of  the 
gospel.  In  fine,  this  scheme  is  contrary  to  the  power  of  godliness,  as 
it  is  an  unfaithful,  backsliding,  selfish  and  Deistical  scheme.  How 
importunate  ought  christians  to  be  in  prayer,  for  the  church's  deliver- 
ance from  such  a  fatal  wasting  plague  ? 

Alex.  I  have  many  examples  of  catholic  communion  to  produce 
from  the  history  of  the  primitive  and  of  the  reformed  churches.  These 
may  be  the  subject  of  our  next  conversation. 

RuF.  I  have  no  objection  to  this  proposal.  I  hope,  then,  my  friend, 
you  will  soon  favor  me  with  your  company  at  my  house,  where  there 
is  a  collection  of  books,  which  will  be  of  use  to  us  in  examining  these 
examples. 

Alex.  I  will  be  with  you,  if  the  Lord  will,  within  a  few  days. 

RuF.  May  he  direct  us  to  inquire  after  the  truth  in  his  fear,  with  a 
due  regard  to  his  word  as  our  only  rule,  and  to  his  glory  as  our  chief 
end.  And,  in  this  inquiry,  may  he  be  led  to  make  a  proper  use  of  the 
footsteps  of  the  flock,  and  to  ask  for  the  old  paths,  saying.  Where  is 
the  good  way,  that  we  may  walk  therein  ? 


96  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 


DIALOGUE  Y. 

The  adoption  of  this  scheme  of  catholic  commuuion  by  the  Tvhole  church,  in  any 
period,  incredible— What  sort  of  instances  are  not  to  be  admitted  as  examples 
of  this  catholic  communion— No  approved  practice  of  such  communion  in  the 
time  of  the  apostles— Nor  for  some  centuries  after  their  decease  shown  ;  first, 
from  the  designations  of  the  truths  which  communicants  professed  to  receive ; 
secondly,  from  the  exclusion  of  some  from  sacramental  communion  who  were 
esteemed  as  true  christians ;  thirdly,  from  the  authority  of  the  decrees  of 
councils  in  the  primitive  church ;  fourthly,  from  the  uniformity  of  public 
profession  in  the  primitive  church — The  practice  of  this  catholic  communion 
not  proved  by  the  different  usages  that  obtained  in  the  ancient  churches — 
Whether  it  was  the  sense  of  the  ancients,  that  separation  from  a  particular 
church,  holding  the  essentials,  is  always  separation  from  the  catholic  church — 
Whether  the  Fathers  condemned  the  Novatians  and  Donatists  simply  on  ac- 
count of  their  separation  from  the  churches  of  Rome  and  Africa — Errors  of 
the  Donatists — The  principles  and  reasoning  of  these  sects  very  diflferent  from 
those  of  many  who  now  oppose  the  modern  scheme  of  catholic  communion — 
Whether  it  was  the  judgment  of  the  Fathers,  that  by  this  very  fact  of  separa- 
tion from  the  churches  of  Rome  and  Africa,  the  Novatians  and  Donatists  cast 
themselves  out  of  the  catholic  church— Whether  the  different  opinions  ex- 
pressed by  the  Fathers  concerning  church  government,  proves  that  they  prac- 
ticed the  catholic  communion  in  question — The  practice  of  those  witnesses 
who  separated  from  the  church  of  Rome,  contrary  to  this  catholic  commu- 
nion—The case  of  God's  people  who  continued  within  the  pale  of  the  church 
of  Rome,  no  example  of  this  catholic  communion. 

Alexander  having  come  according  to  his  promise,  found  Rufus  in 
his  study.  Alexander  observed,  that  here  was  a  considerable  library. 
Good  books,  says  he,  are  legacies  which  our  ancestors  have  left  us- 
They  are  more  valuable  than  mines  of  gold.  Some  contain  useful  dis- 
coveries that  had  been  made  in  the  mineral^  vegetable,  and  animal 
kingdoms.  Some  explain  the  laws  that  regulate  civil  society,  and  se- 
cure the  equal  rights  of  citizens.  Some,  which  treat  of  being,  in  gen- 
eral, point  out  the  various  classes  of  it,  and  delineate  particularly  the 
operations  of  the  human  mind.  Some  teach  us  how  to  write  correctly 
and  elegantly,  and  how  to  interpret  the  writings  of  others.  Of  the 
sort  last  mentioned,  the  more  valuable  are  those  which  assist  us  in  the 
interpretation  of  the  holy  scriptures. 

RuF.  We  are  greatly  indebted  to  those  who  have  written  commen- 
taries on  the  books  of  the  scriptures  ;  and  also  to  those  who  have  com- 
posed systems,  exhibiting  the  close  and  beautiful  connexion  which  re- 
vealed truths  have  with  one  another,  and  directieg  us  to  particular 


ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS.  97 

places  of  scripture,  in  which  they  are  evidently  taught.  The  Confession 
and  Catechisms  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  throw  more  light  on  the 
scriptures,  than  many  commentaries.  The  history,  too,  of  the  affairs 
of  the  church,  since  the  canon  of  scripture  was  closed,  are  of  great  use; 
as  they  show  how  the  special  providence  of  God  has  been  exercised 
about  her,  according  to  the  prophecies  and  promises  of  the  scriptures; 
and  how  the  truths  and  instructions  of  Christ,  have  been  preserved  in 
her  profession  and  practice,  notwithstanding  continual  opposition. 

Alex.  Your  last  observation  reminds  me  of  the  proposal  which  we 
agreed  to  at  the  close  of  our  former  conversation  ;  to  consider  the  pas- 
sages in  the  history  of  the  church,  which  have  been  insisted  on  as  ex- 
amples of  catholic  communion  ;  particularly  by  the  author  of  a  Plea, 
lately  published,  for  that  communion. 

§  26.  RuF.  There  is  no  other  ground,  on  which  we  can  safely  rest 
as  our  warrant  for  believing  any  doctrine  or  practice  to  be  of  God,  but 
his  own  word.  In  this  word,  we  have  not  found  any  command  or  ex- 
ample countenancing  this  lax  scheme  of  church  communion.  Observe 
the  charge  which  the  Lord  gave  the  prophet  Ezekiel :  "  Thou  son  of 
man,  show  the  house  to  the  house  of  Israel,  that  they  may  be  ashamed 
of  their  iniquities  ;  and  let  them  measure  the  pattern  :  and  if  they  be 
ashamed  of  all  that  they  have  done,  show  them  the  form  of  the  house, 
and  the  fashion  thereof,  and  all  the  ordinances  thereof,  and  all  the 
forms  thereof,  and  all  the  laws  thereof :  and  write  it  in  their  sight, 
that  they  may  keep  the  whole  form  thereof,  and  all  the  ordinances 
thereof,  and  do  them.  This  is  the  law  of  the  house  :  Upon  the  top  of 
the  mountain,  the  whole  limit  thereof  round  about  shall  be  most  holy. 
Behold,  this  is  the  law  of  the  house,"  Ezek.  xliii.  10,  11,  12.  This 
enumeration  plainly  implies,  that  God's  professing  people  ought  to 
be  ashamed  of  any  want  of  conformity  to  the  law  of  the  house,  even 
in  matters  that  may  seem  to  be  of  less  importance.  They  ought  to 
be  ashamed  of  omitting  even  the  tythe  of  mint,  annise  and  cummin, 
when  God  requires  it,  as  well  as  of  omitting  the  weightier  matters  of 
judgment,  mercy  and  truth.  And  if  the  church  ought  to  be  ashamed  of 
such  an  omission,  she  ought  to  account  it  censurable  in  her  members. 

But,  according  to  the  scheme  of  catholic  communion,  a  particular 
church  is  bound  to  admit  to  sacrmental  communion,  without  any  cen- 
sure, those  who  avow  the  most  obstinate  opposition  to  the  scriptural 
profession  which  she  has  attained;;  provided  only  that  the  parts  of  her 
profession  which  they  oppose,  however  plainly  contained  in  the  scrip- 
ture, be  non-essentials.  It  will  be  strange,  if  a  scheme  so  contrary  to 
scripture,  should  be  found  to  have  been  adopted  and  maintained  by 
the  whole  church  of  God,  in  any  period. 

§  27.  Instances  have  been  produced  as  examples  of  this  lax  com- 
munion, which  ought  by  no  means  to  be  admitted  as  such.     Thus  in- 
stances of  the  church's  use  of  creeds  consisting  of  doctrines  that  are 
called  essential,  are  no  examples  of  this  lax  communion  ;  while  it  does 
7 


98  ALEXANDER    AND    RUFUS. 

not  appear,  that  the  profession  which  the  primitive  church  required  of 
her  members,  was  limited  to  what  was  literally  expressed  in  these 
creeds  ;  and  while  these  creeds  themselves  serve  to  show  the  care  of 
the  church  to  exclude  the  erroneous  from  her  communion,  the  terms 
used  in  them  being  allowed  to  have  been  directly  opposite  to  the  terms 
in  which  the  erroneous  expressed  their  opinions.  In  the  second  place, 
instances  of  sacramental  communion  between  churches  having  various 
usages,  which  may  be  justly  considered  as  indifferent,  and  not  con- 
trary to  the  scriptural  profession  and  testimony  maintained  by  either 
of  these  churches,  are  no  examples  of  this  lax  communion.  In  short 
instances  of  one  church  having  sacramental  communion  with  another, 
while  there  is  nothing  in  the  profession  of  the  one  opposite  to  the 
scriptural  profession  of  the  other,  cannot  be  admitted  as  examples  of 
the  catholic  communion  in  question. 

§  28.  Alex.  Was  not  catholic  communion  practised  in  the  times  of 
the  apostles,  or  soon  after  ? 

RuF.  We  have  already  considered  several  passages  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  which  have  been  proposed  as  examples  of  this  pretended 
catholic  communion ;  and  have  found  them  nothing  to  toe  purpose. 
The  truth  is,  this  scheme  of  communion  could  have  no  place  in  the 
times  of  the  apostles ;  because  there  was  then  no  difference  among 
the  churches  in  respect  of  their  profession  of  the  faith.  Every  church, 
planted  by  the  apostles  or  evangelists,  professed  adherence  to  their 
whole  doctrine,  and  to  no  other.  Hence,  while  the  profession  of  all 
the  churches  was  the  same,  one  church's  admission  of  the  members  of 
another  church,  to  her  sacramental  communion,  could  never  imply  the 
admission  of  an  open  and  obstinate  opposer  of  any  one  article  of  her 
scriptural  profession.  There  were  disorders  and  offences  in  the  first 
christian  churches,  as  well  as  in  the  churches  at  present ;  but  there  is 
no  evidence,  that  the  constitution  of  any  of  these  churches  tolerated,  in 
their  communion,  the  rejection  of  a  single  article  of  the  doctrine,  wor- 
ship or  discipline  delivered  by  the  apostles. 

§  29.  It  seems  to  have  been  the  sense  of  the  catholic  church,  for  at 
least  two  centuries  after  the  decease  of  the  apostles,  that  no  avowed 
opposer  of  any  one  article,  essential  or  non-essential,  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  apostles,  ought  to  be  admitted  to  sacramental  communion.  Of 
this  we  may  be  satisfied  by  observing  some,  things  that  are  obvious  in 
the  history  of  the  church  in  the  second  and  third  centuries,  and  even 
in  some  measure  in  the  fourth  and  fifth. 

The  first  thing  I  observe,  is,  that  the  fathers  in  that  period  still 
called  the  doctrine,  which  all  the  faithful  members  of  the  church  were 
to  hold,  the  doctrine  or  the  truth  taught  by  the  apostles  and  their  suc- 
cessors in  the  ministry  ;  and  these  fathers  also  represented  another  or 
different  doctrine,  held  by  any,  as  a  suflBcient  ground  of  withdrawing 
from  them.  "Let  the  children,"  says  Clemens  Romanus,  "be  bred 
up  in  the  institutions  of  Christ.     All  these  things  must  be  confirmed 


ALEXANDER    AND  RUFUS.  99 

by  the  faith  that  is  in  Christ.  It  will  behoove  us,  that  we  do  all 
things  in  order,  whatsoever  our  Lord  has  commanded  us  to  do.'^ 
*'Let  us  serve  in  ft  ar,''  says  Ignatius,  "and  with  all  reverence,  as  both 
himself  hath  commanded ;  and,  as  the  apostles,  who  preached  the 
gospel  to  us,  and  the  prophets,  who  foretold  the  coming  of  the  Lord, 
have  taught  us,  being  zealous  of  what  is  good ;  abstaining  from  all 
oflfences,  and  from  false  b^ethren."f  "I  have  heard  of  some  who 
have  passed  by  you,  having  perverse  doctrine  ;  whom  ye  did  not 
suffer  to  sow  among  you. "J  "Study  to  be  confirmed  in  the  doctrine 
of  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  ;  that  so  whatsoever  ye  do,  ye  may 
prosper."||  "I  exhort  you,  or  rather  not  I,  but  the  love  of  Jesus 
Christ,  that  ye  use  none  but  christian  nourishment,  abstaining  from 
pasture,  which  is  of  another  kind,  I  mean  heresy ; — namely,  that  of 
those  who  confound  together  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  Christ  with  their  own 
poison;  while  they  seem  worthy  of  belief;  or  even  give  a  deadly 
potion  mixed  with  sweet  wine ;  so  that  he,  who  is  ignorant  of  it,  does 
with  treacherous  pleasure,  drink  in  his  own  death.  Wherefore,  guard 
yourselves  against  such  persons.  And  you  will  do  so,  if  you  are  not 
puffed  up,  but  continue  inseparable  from  Jesus  Christ  our  God,  and 
from  your  bishops,  and  from  the  commands  of  the  apostles. ''§  "Let 
not  those  who  seem  worthy  of  credit,  and  yet  teach  other  doctrines, 
disturb  thee.  Stand  firm  and  immoveable,  as  an  anvil,  when  it  is 
beaten  upon.  "•[[  The  epistle  of  Barnabas  exhorts  the  christian  in 
these  words :  "Thou  shalt  love,  as  the  apple  of  thine  eye,  every  one 
that  speaketh  unto  thee  the  word  of  the  Lord."**  "No  man,"  says 
Justin  Martyr,  "is  admitted  to  the  food  we  call  the  Eucharist,  but  he 
only  that  believeth  the  worth  of  our  doctrine,  "ff  "We  must  withdraw,-' 
says  Irenaeus,  "from  the  Presbyters  who  serve  their  lusts  and  have 
not  the  fear  of  God  in  their  hearts ; — but  we  must  adhere  to  those 
who  keep  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles ;  and  with  the  order  of  the 
Presbytery  show  sound  speech  and  a  blameless  conversation.  "J J 

Alex.  What  do  you  mean,  Rufus,  by  adducing  these  passages?  1 
hope,  you  do  not  think,  that  the  advocates  for  catholic  communion  are 
against  our  adhering  to  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles! 

RuF.  What  I  mean  to  infer  from  these  passages,  is,  that  the  primi- 
tive christians,  in  speaking  of  those  from  whom  church  members  were 
to  withdraw,  or  with  whom  they  were  not  to  join  in  sacramental  com- 
munion, did  not  distinguish  between  the  essential  and  the  non-essen- 

*  Clemen's  Epistle  to  tlie  Corinthians,  Sect.  21,  22,  40. 

t  Ignatius'  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  Sect.  6. 
X  Ignat.  Epist.  to  the  Eph.  Sect.  9.        \  Ignat.  Epist.  to  the  Magnes.  Sect  13. 
§  Ignat.  Epist.  to  the  Trail.  Sect.  6.  7.  ^  Ignat.  Epist.  to  Polycarp. 
**  Barnabas'  Epist.  Sect.  19.  ft  Just.  Mart.  2  Apol. 

XX  Iren.  adversus  Haereses,  lib.  iv.  cap.  44. 


100  ALEXANDER  AND   RUFUS. 

tial  parts  of  the  apostolic  doctrine ;  and  that  there  seems  to  be  no 
ground  to  think,  that  they  would  have  joined  in  communion  with  an 
obstinate  and  avowed  opposer  of  what  they  knew  and  acknowledged 
to  be  an  article  of  that  doctrine. 

Alex.  The  primitive  church,  from  the  days  of  the  apostles  to  the 
close  of  the  fourth  century,  in  the  exposition  of  her  faith,  as  a  rallying 
point  of  union,  confined  herself  to  a  few  great  principles, — principles, 
which  are,  every  where  and  at  all  times,  vital  to  the  religion  of  Jesus — 
and  without  which  it  is  impossible  there  should  be  either  Christianity 
or  christians.  Nothing  can  be  more  simple,  or  summed  up  with  more 
studious  brevity,  than  the  early  creeds,  or,  as  they  were  called,  the 
symbols  of  the  faith :  Such  is  that  familiarly  known  by  the  name  of 
The  Apostles^  Creec? :  and  thatin  Irenaeus  against  various  heresies, 
in  the  following  terms  :  "  The  church,  although  scatterd  over  the  whole 
world,  even  to  the  extremities  of  the  earth,  has  received  from  the 
apostles  and  their  disciples,  the  faith,  viz.  one  God  the  father,  Al- 
mighty, that  made  the  heaven,  and  the  earth,  and  the  sea,  and  all 
things  therein,  and  one  Christ  Jesus,  the  Son  of  God,  who  became 
incarnate  for  our  salvation  ;  and  one  Holy  Spirit,  who,  by  the  holy 
prophets,  preached  the  dispensations,  and  the  advents,  and  the  gene- 
ration from  a  virgin,  and  the  suffering,  and  the  resurrection  from  the 
dead,  and  the  assumption,  in  flesh,  into  heaven,  of  our  beloved  Lord 
Jesus  Christ ;  and  his  coming  again  from  the  heaven  in  the  glory  of 
the  Father,  to  sum  up  all  things,  and  raise  all  flesh  of  all  mankind ; 
that  to  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord,  and  God,  and  Saviour,  and  King,  ac- 
cording to  the  good  pleasure  of  his  Father  who  is  invisible,  every  knee 
may  bow,  of  beings  in  heaven,  on  earth,  and  under  the  earth ;  and 
every  tongue  may  confess  to  him  ;  and  that  he  may  exercise  righteous 
judgment  upon  all, — sending  the  ungodly  into  eternal  fire  ; — but  be- 
stowing on  the  righteous  and  holy,  incorruplion,  and  the  possession  of 
eternal  glory."  It  is  clear,  that  this  venerable  father  meant  here  to 
state  substantially  those  high  and  leading  truths  which  formed  the  doc- 
trinal bond  of  their  union.* 

RuF.  I  have  already  observed,  that  the  church's  use  of  such  creeds 
is  nothing  to  your  purpose ;  while,  as  has  been  shown  by  various  ex- 
positors of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  the  reason  of  the  selection  of  the  par- 
ticular articles,  stated  in  these  creeds,  was  their  direct  and  express 
opposition  to  the  errors  which  prevailed  at  the  time  when  they  were 
composed ;  a  circumstance  which  rendered  the  church's  requiring  an 
assent  to  them  a  proper  mean  of  excluding  such  as  adhered  to  these 
errors,  from  sacramental  communion.  The  summary  of  the  faith, 
given  by  Irenseus,  suited  the  design  of  his  treatise  ;  which  was  to  state 
some  of  the  leading  principles  of  the  christian  religion,  which  were 
manifestly  opposite  to  the  errors  which  he  enumerates.     But  it  can  do 

*  Plea  for  Catholic  Sacramental  Comnmnion,  pages  38,  39,  40.  43. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  101 

nothing  to  prove  that  the  primitive  church  used  what  is  now  called 
catholic  communion.  For  if  we  suppose  it  to  be  meant,  that  these 
creeds  were  the  only  bond  of  union  in  such  a  manner,  that  persons  were 
admitted  to  sacramental  communion,  who  assented  to  the  words,  though 
they  openly  denied  many  truths  of  God's  word,  that  were  only  implied, 
or  not  expressed,  in  the  words  of  these  creeds,  it  would  prove  too 
much  for  your  purpose ;  I  mean  more  than,  I  suppose,  you  would 
grant :  for  then  it  would  prove,  that  the  primitive  church  admitted 
persons,  who  openly  denied  the  proper  satisfaction  of  Christ  in  the 
stead  of  his  people,  the  duty  of  partaking  of  the  sacraments  of  baptism 
and  the  Lord's  supper,  and  a  multitude  of  other  truths,  which  are  not 
expressly  mentioned  in  the  creeds  to  which  you  refer.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  the  bond  of  union,  as  to  doctrine  in  the  primitive  church,  in- 
cluding not  only  the  truths  literally  expressed  in  these  creeds,  but  also 
other  truths  that  were  implied,  and  such  as  are  not  mentioned  in  them ; 
then  the  communicants  of  the  primitive  church  must  be  considered  as 
assenting  to  these  other  truths ;  and  the  avowed  and  obstinate  denial 
of  them,  as  well  as  of  those  literally  mentioned  in  these  creeds,  must 
have  been  a  ground  of  exclusion  from  sacramental  communion.  And, 
indeed,  to  suppose,  that  the  primitive  church  dispensed  with  the  faith 
and  profession  of  the  doctrines  or  commands  of  Christ's  word,  not  ex- 
pressly mentioned  in  these  creeds ;  or  that  she  did  not  censure  the  open 
and  obstinate  denial  of  such  doctrines  and  commands,  is  a  supposition 
not  only  groundless,  but  reproachful  to  the  primitive  church  ;  as  if 
she  had  not  so  much  as  aimed  at  a  faithful  adherence  to  the  whole  word 
of  Christ,  or  as  if  there  had  been  some  of  his  words,  the  denial  of 
which,  even  in  the  most  open  and  obstinate  manner,  gave  her  little  or 
no  offence. 

Alex.  As  heresies,  corrupting  any  cardinal  principle  of  Christianity, 
arose  in  the  church,  her  public  profession  met  them  by  an  open  and 
decisive  assertion  of  the  injured  truth.  This  necessarily  enlarged,  by 
-degrees,  the  number  of  articles  in  her  creed,  as  well  as  the  scope  of 
her  ministerial  instruction.  But  the  basis  of  her  communion  was  laid 
so  broad,  that  all,  who  held  the  Head,  might  join  in  the  enjoyment  of 
christian  privileges.* 

RuF.  The  church's  creed,  as  contained  in  the  writings  of  the  apos- 
tles and  prophets,  may  be  justly  said  to  have  been  always  the  same  ; 
it  was  never  altered :  the  enlargement  of  it  was  only  its  application  to 
the  new  appearance  of  prevailing  error.  But  such  new  application 
showed,  that  the  basis  of  the  church's  communion  was'  not  so  narrow, 
nor  so  limited  to  a  few  general  terms,  as  your  catholic  scheme  suppos- 
es; and  that  it  e^luded  from  sacramental  communion  an  obstinate 
opposer  of  any  of  the  doctrines  of  the  apostles,  even  though  they  were 
not  expressly  mentioned  in  what  is  called  the  apostles',  or  in  Irenaeus' 

*Plea,  &c.,  page  43, 43. 


102  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

creed.  The  reason  of  the  condemnation  of  errors  by  the  primitive 
church,  was  not  merely  because  they  were  contrary  to  some  cardinal 
doctrines,  but  because  they  were  contrary  to  any  of  the  doctrines  taught 
by  the  apostles,  as  has  been  shown. 

Alex.  The  ancient  church  never  launched  out  into  wide  discussion ; 
never  pursued  principles  to  their  remote  consequences ;  nor  embarrass- 
ed her  testimony  by  numerous  and  minute  applications.* 

RuF.  There  were  two  things,  which  the  ancient  church,  before  the 
grand  papal  apostacy,  aimed  at  in  stating  her  testimony :  one  was,  that 
it  should  be  pure  or  exactly  conformable,  in  every  article,  to  the  word 
of  God.  Hence  the  church,  in  those  days,  studied  to  mark  with  preci- 
sion the  differences  between  truth  and  error,  and  to  guard  against  ex- 
tremes. Thus,  while  she  asserted  the  scriptural  distinction  ot  the  per- 
sons in  the  Godhead  against  Praxeas  and  Sabellius,  she  also  maintained 
the  numerical  unity  of  the  Divine  essence  in  the  three  persons  against 
Arius  and  Macedonius :  She  held  both  the  distinction  of  the  natures 
in  the  person  of  Christ  against  Nestorius,  and  also  the  unity  of  his  per- 
son against  Eutyches.  This  could  not  be  done  without  discussion  and 
the  accurate  deducing  of  consequences.  The  other  thing,  which  the 
ancient  church  aimed  at,  was  to  render  her  creed,  or  public  profession, 
more  and  more  perfect  as  to  its  extent  and  particularity.  She  enlarg- 
ed, as  you  yourself  have  just  now  observed,  her  statement  of  the  articles 
of  her  creed.  She  endeavored  to  go  on  toward  perfection  in  this  mat- 
ter. It  was  not  the  policy  of  the  church  of  Christ,  in  her  purer  times, 
to  conceal  the  errors  held  by  some  in  her  communion  by  stating  her 
profession  in  general  and  ambiguous  terms. 

Alex.  The  creed  of  the  primitive  church  contained  her  terms  of 
communion.  Consequently,  agreement  in  opinions,  about  which  chris- 
tians might  differ,  without  impugning  any  of  these  doctrines,  made  no 
part  of  these  terms.  She  did  not  consider  such  differences  as  violat- 
ing her  unity.  And  how  numerous  they  were,  no  one  needs  be  told, 
who  has  looked  into  her  history,  f 

RuF.  We  have  seen,  that  the  creed  of  the  primitive  church  was  never 
limited  to  the  points  literally  mentioned  in  the  apostles'  and  Irenseus' 
creeds.  While  christians  considered  all  the  doctrines  of  the  apostles 
as  belonging  to  the  bond  of  the  church's  union,  they  must  have  reck- 
oned the  unity  of  the  church  to  be  violated  or  impaired  by  the  open 
denial  of  any  one  of  these  doctrines.  I  know,  there  were  numerous 
differences  and  disputes  in  the  primitive  church ;  yet  it  would  be  diffi- 
cult to  produce  an  instance  of  any  that  were  admitted  to  sacramental 
communion,  in  the  period  of  which  I  now  speak,  who  avowed  the  re- 
jection of  what  the  church  in  her  public  profession  justly  acknowledged 
to  be  a  doctrine  of  the  apostles.  Anicetus  at  Rome  admitted  Polycarp 
to  sacramental  communion,  notwithstanding  a  difference  between  them 

*  Plea,  &c.,  page  42.  t  Plea,  &c.,  page  111. 


ALEXANDER  AND   RUFUS.  103 

about  the  observation  of  Easter.  But,  in  this  instance,  what  was  de- 
nied by  Polyearp  was  no  doctrine  of  the  apostles ;  for,  as  the  historian 
Socrates  observes,  neither  Christ  nor  his  apostles  had  delivered  any 
command  about  it.  Various  rites  of  human  invention,  such  as  the  use 
of  oil,  of  milk,  and  honey  in  the  administration  of  baptism  and  the 
mixture  of  the  wine  in  the  Lord's  supper  with  water,  were  insensibly 
introduced  in  some  parts  of  the  church.  But,  while  no  explicit  testimo- 
ny was  given  in  the  profession  of  any  particular  church  against  those 
rites  as  corruptions  of  the  instituted  worship  of  God,  and  as  contrary 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles,  the  sacramental  communion  between 
churches  that  used  them,  and  those  that  omitted  them,  was  no  example 
of  the  catholic  communion  which  is  now  under  consideration.  The  church's 
suffering  these  innovations  to  pass  without  notice  was  an  evidence  of 
a  general  decline  in  some  degree  from  her  primitive  purity  and  vigi- 
lance. But  in  this  case  there  was  no  example  of  sacramental  commu- 
nion, like  that  of  the  scheme  in  question,  between  any  publicly  and  ob- 
stinately denying  a  part,  supposed  to  be  not  essential,  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  apostles,  and  those  who  professed  adherence  to  that  as  well  as 
other  parts  of  their  doctrine. 

But  it  is  time  to  proceed  to  a  second  observation,  which  is,  that  the 
primitive  church  sometimes  excluded  from  their  communion  such  as 
they  had  ground,  according  to  a  judgment  of  charity,  to  consider  as 
real  christians.  They  certainly  regarded  Tertullian  in  this  light ;  for 
whom  Cyprian  had  such  an  esteem,  that,  when  he  called  for  any  of  his 
writings,  he  used  to  say,  Da  magistrum.  Give  me  the  doctor ;  and  yet, 
when  Tertullian  joined  the  sect  of  the  Montanists,  he  was  considered 
as  out  of  the  communion  of  the  church.*  Novatian  and  his  followers 
were  also  excluded  from  it ;  though  many  of  them  were  allowed  to  be 
pious  ;  and  though  their  error  in  refusing  to  re- admit  to  communion 
those  who  had  once  lapsed  by  denying  the  faith,  whatever  evidence 
they  gave  afterwards  of  repentance,  was  not  an  error  in  the  more  essen- 
tial parts  of  the  christain  religion.  It  is  not  said,  that  their  profession 
was  in  any  other  respect  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles. 
Christians  in  this  period  refused  to  have  communion  with  heretics. 
The  word  heresy  seems  to  have  been  then  used  in  a  larger  sense  than 
that  in  which  it  is  now  taken.  Tertullian  defines  heresy,  Quodcun- 
que  admrsus  veritatem  sapit ;  etiam  consuetudo  ;-f  whatever  opin- 
ion is  held  as  wisdom,  while  it  is  against  the  truth  ;  though  recommend- 
ed by  ancient  custom.  Even  Jerome  long  after  gives  this  definition  of 
a  heretic :  Quiscunque  aliter  scripturam  intelUgit,  quam  sensus 
spiritus  Sandi  flagitat,  quo  conscripta  est,^  that  he  is  one  who  under- 

*  DuPin  says,  all  the  ancients  have  spoken  of  him  as  one,  who  after  he  had 
joined  the  Montanists,  was  out  of  the  commuuiou  of  the  church.  Bibliotheca 
veterum  Ecclesiast.,  vol.  i.  page  70. 

t  De  virginibus  velandis.  X  ^^  epistolam  ad  Galet. 


104  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

stands  tlie  scriptures  otherwise,  than  the  mind  of  the  Holy  Spirit  re- 
quires. It  is  certain,  that  all,  who  were  called  heretics,  were  not  equally 
opposers  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel.  Aerius  in  the 
fourth  century  was  accounted  a  heretic,  not  so  much  on  account  of 
Arianism,  with  which  he  seems  to  have  been  falsely  charged,  as  for  his 
judgment  about  the  identity  of  bishop  and  presbyter,  and  for  his  oppo- 
sition to  anniversary  fasts  and  prayers  for  the  dead.  Meletius,  says 
Du  Pin,  was  a  very  good  catholic ;  and  yet  he  was  for  a  time  excluded 
from  the  communion  of  Paulinus  and  Athanasius.  The  catholics  in 
the  fourth  century  refused  to  have  communion  with  eminently  pious 
men  on  account  of  their  communion  with  Arians.  Thus  Theodolus 
and  other  bishops  excluded  Basil  from  their  communion  on  account  of 
his  correspondence  with  Eustathius  an  Arian  bishop.* 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  there  were  some  who,  according  to  a  judg- 
ment of  charity,  had  communion  with  Christ,  with  whom,  while  they 
persisted  in  some  error,  the  primitive  christians  deemed  it  neither  safe 
nor  warrantable  to  have  sacramental  communion. 

In  the  third  place,  it  may  be  observed,  that  the  authority  of  councils 
was  regarded  by  the  primitive  church  as  the  ordinance  of  Christ ;  on 
which  account  their  decrees,  being  found  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God, 
were  received  as  rules  of  discipline.  It  is  evident,  that  these  decrees, 
while  consonant  to  the  scripture,  were  justly  considered  as  terms  of 
communion,  though  they  did  not  belong  to  the  essentials  of  Christianity. 
Thus,  one  of  the  decrees  of  the  council  descibed  in  the  xv.  chapter  of 
the  Acts  of  Apostles  prohibited  the  practice  of  eating  blood,  while  it 
gave  offence  to  the  Jewish  converts.  This  regulation  against  giving 
offence,  was  as  far  from  being  an  essential,  as  any  thing  that  really 
belongs  to  Christianity  can  be .  Yet  it  was  undoubtedly  necessary  to  be 
observed  by  the  members  of  those  churches,  to  which  the  decrees  of 
that  council  were  delivered :  and  such  as  rejected  this  regulation,  while 
the  observation  of  it  was  necessary  to  avoid  giving  offence,  were  liable 
to  censure,  and  if  obstinate,  to  exclusion  from  sacramental  commu- 
nion. Such  obligation  is  implied  in  the  names  given  to  the  directions 
of  this  council,  viz  :  necessary  burdens  and  decrees,  and  in  the  delivery 
of  them  to  several  churches  to  be  kept.  A  council  held  in  Africa  in 
the  year  253,  declared  it  to  be  an  error  to  assert,  that  infants  ought 
not  to  be  baptized,  till  the  eighth  day  after  their  birth.  The  council 
of  Nice  which  met  in  the  year  325,  made  several  good  regulations  with 
regard  to  discipline ;  such  as,  that  prohibiting  the  ordination  of  novices, 
or  new  converts,  according  to  Paul's  direction  in  1  Tim.  ii.  6 :  another 
prohibiting  the  practice  of  usury  among  the  clergy,  in  order  to  cheek 
the  progress  of  covetousness :  in  opposing  which  the  ministers  of  Christ 
ought  to  be  exemplary,  according  to  the  apostle's  character  of  a  bishop, 

*  Bibliotheca  veterum  Ecclesiasticorum,  vol.  ii,  page  123. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  105 

that  he  should  not  be  covetous  or  greedy  of  filthy  lucre ;  and  another 
prohibiting  the  rebaptism  of  those  who  had  been  baptized  by  the  No- 
vatians  and  other  separatists ;  provided  they  professed  the  belief  of  the 
Trinity,  and  administered  baptism  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son, 
and  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  obvious,  that  these  decrees  did  not  respect 
the  most  essential  parts  of  the  christian  rehgion.  The  authority  of 
councils  was  greatly  respected  by  the  ancient  church :  nor  do  I  know 
any  reason  to  believe,  that  it  was  her  practice  to  admit  any  open  op- 
posers  of  the  decrees  of  legitimate  and  approved  councils  to  her  sacra- 
mental communion.*  It  is  true,  councils  are  not  infallible ;  audit 
would  be  easy  to  make  a  collection  of  erroneous  and  futile  decrees  of 
councils.  So  it  would  be  easy  to  make  a  collection  of  the  wicked  and 
oppressive  laws  of  civil  states ;  but  as  no  reasonable  person  would 
allow  that  to  be  an  objection  to  the  authority  of  laws  in  the  civil  state ; 
so  it  cannot  well  be  admitted  as  a  sufficient  objection  to  the  authority 
of  the  decrees  of  ecclesiastical  councils.  The  church  is  fallible :  she 
may  find  her  former  judgments  to  have  been  wrong ;  in  which  case, 
she  ought  to  correct  them.  But  as  long  as  she  finds  them  agreeable  to 
the  word  of  God ;  she  cannot  consistently  admit  the  open  and  obsti- 
nate opposers  of  them  to  her  sacramental  communion.  This  was  the 
principle  which  regulated  the  communion  of  the  ancient  church.  In- 
deed every  society,  civil  and  religious,  so  far  as  it  is  regular,  adheres 
to  the  same  principle. 

In  the  fourth  place,  it  may  be  observed,  that,  on  account  of  the  unity 
and  uniformity  of  the  ancient  churches,  their  communion  with  one 
another  cannot  be  considered  as  an  example  of  the  catholic  commu- 
nion now  pleaded  for.  Among  churches,  which  it  is  supposed  are  to 
have  this  communion  with  one  another,  there  is  not  only  some  difference 
of  opinions  and  practices,  as  there  may  be,  in  some  degree,  among  the 
members  of  the  same  church ;  but  each  of  these  churches  is  constituted 
expressly  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  its  peculiar  tenets  and  practi- 
ces ;  and  whoever  joins  with  that  church  declares,  ipso  facto,  or  in 
doing  so,  his  agreement  with  the  tenets  or  practices,  for  the  mainte- 
nance of  which  it  exists  as  a  separate  society. 

The  end  for  which  one  of  these  churches  exists,  is  the  maintenance 
of  Episcopacy ;  the  end  of  another  of  them  is  the  support  of  Antipdedo- 
baptism ;  the  end  of  a  third  is,  the  upholding  of  the  Congregational 
or  Independent  scheme  of  church  order.  Thus,  it  is  the  case  with 
these  churches  that  they  have  opposite  and  contradictory  professions. 
It  was  quite  otherwise  with  the  ancient  churches  that  had  communion 
with  one  another.  They  were  different  in  their  local  situation ;  but 
they  were  not  constituted  or  maintained  as  separate  churches,  on  ac- 
count of  differences  in  their  public  profession  or  practice. 

•^•-  The  decrees  of  synods  or  councils,  saj's  Mr.  Gibbon,  speaking  of  this  period, 
"regulated  every  important  controversy  of  faith  and  discipline."  The  Decline  of 
the  Rom.  Emp.  chap.  xv. 


106  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

Alex.  Catholic  communion  proceeds  upon  this  principle,  that  a 
difference  in  rites  and  customs,  in  worship,  in  different  churches  of  Christ, 
should  not  dissolve  the  bond  of  the  union ;  a  principle  which  was  pro- 
ceeded on  by  the  ancient  church.  There  were  discordant  parties  in  the 
apostolical  church  itself;  as  in  modes  of  dress  to  be  used  by  persons 
attending  public  worship  ;  there  were  disputes  about  the  religious  dis- 
tinction of  meats  and  days :  but  the  apostle  Paul  reckoned  that  mat- 
ters of  secondary  moment,  relating  to  the  worship  of  God,  were  no  justi- 
fiable cause  of  contention  among  christians.  Let  us  follow  after  the 
the  things  which  make  for  peace,  and  things  wherewith  one  may  edify, 
may  build  up  and  not  pull  down,  another.  Circumcision  is  nothing, 
and  uncircumcision  is  nothing  but  keeping  the  commandments  of  God. 
Accordingly,  Paul  circumcised  Timothy  to  soothe  a  Jewish  prejudice : 
he  submitted,  by  the  advice  of  the  Presbyters  at  Jerusalem,  to  a  useless 
but  harmless  ceremony  in  purifying  himself,  along  with  four  men  who 
had  a  vow  on  them,  for  the  express  purpose  of  disproving  the  charge 
of  making  war  upon  the  customs  belonging  to  the  Divine  worship, 
which  the  converts,  belonging  to  the  Jews,  had  retained  from  the  ancient 
ceremonial.     About  customs,  as  customs,  he  strove  not."^ 

RuF.  The  case  of  the  meats  and  days,  with  regard  to  which  the  chris- 
tians at  Home  were  to  exercise  forbearance,  and  that  of  Paul's  circum- 
cising Timothy,  have  been  already  considered.  But  it  may  now  be 
observed,  that  when  you  talk  of  rites  and  ceremonies,  as  carnal  things, 
and  of  customs  as  customs,  you  forget  the  state  of  the  question  5  which 
is  not,  whether  we  may  have  communion  with  those  churches  and  their 
members,  that  have  some  rites  or  customs  of  an  indifferent  nature, 
which  are  not  in  use  among  us.  But,  the  question  under  our  consid- 
eration, is  this :  supposing  tiiat  we  have,  in  our  united  capacity,  or  as 
a  church,  exhibited  to  the  world,  a  confession  or  testimony  on  behalf 
of  certain  truths  of  God's  word,  in  opposition  to  the  contrary  erroneous 
opinions,  and  on  behalf  of  certain  commandments  of  God,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  commandments  of  men ;  whether  we  are  still  bound  to  join 
in  sacramental  communion  with  the  avowed  and  obstinate  opposers  of 
one  or  more  articles  of  that  scriptural  profession  or  testimony,  on  this 
consideration ;  that  what  is  opposed,  though  it  be  really  a  truth  or 
commandment  of  God,  is  not  essentially  necessary  to  salvation,  or  not 
assented  to  by  every  true  christian.  The  only  examples  of  your  cath- 
olic communion,  then,  must  be  examples  of  the  apostolic  or  ancient 
church,  admitting  to  her  sacramental  communion  avowed  and  obstinate 
opposers  of  some  article  of  her  scriptural  profession;  of  something 
which  was,  both  yeally  and  in  the  church's  confession,  a  truth  revealed 
or  a  duty  enjoined  in  the  word  of  God ;  though,  compared  with  other 
truths  or  duties,  it  might  be  considered  as  of  less  importance.  The 
import  of  this  catholic  scheme  is  not,  that  circumcision  or  uncircum- 

*Flea,  &c.,  pages  49,  50,  51,  53,  53. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  107 

cision  is  nothing  but  the  keeping  of  the  commandments  of  God :  it  is 
rather  to  this  effect,  The  keeping  of  the  least  of  Godh  command- 
ments is  nothing  ;  hut  only  the  keeping  of  the  greater  and  more 
important. 

The  question  is  not,  whether  harmless  ceremonies,  such  as  you  ac- 
count Paul's  purifying  himself  with  four  men  who  had  a  vow  upon 
them,  (though  perhaps  some  would  think  it  an  unbecoming  reflection 
on  the  apostle  and  his  advisers,  to  say  that,  as  the  case  was  circum- 
stanced, it  was  useless)  ought  to  be  a  bar  to  sacramental  communion  ? 
but  whether  an  avowed  and  obstinate  attachment  to  superstitious  cere- 
monies, that  are  justly  condemned,  not  merely  as  useless,  but  as  cor- 
rupting the  instituted  worship  of  God,  by  taking  away  something  from 
it,  or  by  adding  some  human  invention  ;  whether  this,  or  any  thing 
else  equally  contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  be  not  a  bar  to  that  com- 
munion ?  In  short,  your  examples  of  the  communion  of  the  ancient 
churches,  are  nothing  to  your  purpose  ;  unless  they  be  examples  of 
their  ha\'ing  sacramental  communion  with  open  and  determined  op- 
posers  of  something,  which,  though  not  deemed  essential,  is  really  a 
part  of  the  christian  religion  ;  and  which  is  acknowledged  in  the  pub- 
lic profession  of  the  church,  to  be  so. 

§  30.  Alex.  In  the  ancient  church,  various  observances  arose  out 
of  different  climates,  previous  habits,  social  institutions,  national  char- 
acter :  and  were  as  necessarily  continued,  and  naturally  increased. 
They  produced,  however,  no  discord,  no  inconvenience,  till  about  the 
middle  of  the  second  century  ;  when  sharp  and  vehement  contests 
arose  between  the  Asiatic  and  Western  Churches,  about  the  celebra- 
tion of  Easter. 

EuF.  The  particulars  you  mention,  different  climates,  previous  hab- 
its, social  institutions,  national  character,  might  warrant  and  require 
various  applications  of  the  doctrines  of  the  scripture,  in  opposition  to 
error,  and  also  of  duty  enjoined,  in  opposition  to  sinful  practices.  The 
consideration  of  the  particular  cases  in  which  these  applications  of  doc- 
trines and  duties  were  made,  might  show  them  to  be  all  ageeable  to  the 
word  of  God,  and  so  no  ground  of  discord.  And  supposing  some  of 
these  applications  to  be  erroneous  and  discordant,  they  might  not  enter 
into  the  matter  of  the  public  profession  of  any  of  those  churches.  In 
this  case,  the  communion  of  these  churches  with  one  another,  would  be 
no  example  of  the  scheme  of  sacramental  communion  between  churches 
whose  public  professions  are  so  opposite  to  one  another,  as  those  of 
the  PresbjTterians  and  Episcopalians  ;  of  the  Paedobaptists  and  Anti- 
p^dobaptists. 

The  contest  about  the  celebration  of  Easter  is  nothing  to  the  pur- 
pose :  that  is,  it  is  no  example  of  the  church's  holding  sacramental 
communion  with  the  open  and  obstinate  opposers  of  any  part  of  the 
scriptural  profession  ;  because,  as  has  been  already  observed,  neither 
the  opinion  of  Victor,  nor  that  of  the  Asiatics,  on  this  subject,  belong- 


108  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

ed  to  the  matter  of  such  a  profession.  If  the  one  party  had  been  so 
faithful  as  to  condemn  the  keeping  of  such  a  holiday,  because  it  was  neith- 
er appointed  by  Christ,  nor  mentioned  by  the  apostles  ;  and  the  other 
party  had  openly  avowed  their  resolution  to  persist  in  the  superstitious 
observation  of  it,  their  sacramental  communion  with  one  another, would 
have  been  an  instance  of  what  you  call  catholic  communion.  But, 
while  the  observation  of  Easter  was  considered  by  all  parties,  as  only 
a  custom  received  from  their  ancestors,  and  no  matter  of  faith,  or  of 
their  scriptural  profession,  the  different  opinions  about  it,  could  not 
affect  sacramental  communion,  like  the  differences  among  several  de- 
nominations of  Protestants,  about  points  belonging  to  the  matter  of 
their  religious  profession.  Accordingly  Irenseus,  in  his  letter  to  Vic- 
tor, says,  "Not  only  the  day,  but  the  species  of  this  fast  was  disputed. 
Some  thought,  that  only  one  day  was  to  be  kept ;  some  two,  some 
more ;  others  supposed,  that  it  was  to  be  continued  forty  hours,  includ- 
ing both  day  and  night.  The  variety  of  opinion,  adds  Ireneeus,  had 
not  its  rise  in  our  time,  but  obtained  before  ;  as  the  tradition  of  Eas- 
ter had  been  handed  down  by  our  predecessors  to  those  who  came  af- 
ter them,  not,  it  seems,  with  accuracy ;  but,  in  the  simple  and  careless 
manner  of  common  conversation.  '/*  It  is  not  conceivable,  that  Irenseus 
would  have  spoken  of  this  rite  in  'such  a  manner,  if  he  had  considered  it 
as  really  belonging  to  the  scriptural  profession  of  the  christian  church. 
As  to  what  Irenaeus  adds  about  Polycarp's  holding  Easter  to  have 
been  kept  on  the  14th  day  of  the  first  Jewish  month,  by  John  the  dis- 
ciple of  our  Lord,  and  by  the  other  apostles,  Polycarp  could  as  little 
persuade  Anicetus  that  it  was  so,  as  Anicetus  could  persuade  Polycarp 
that  Peter  and  Paul  kept  it,  as  the  Western  Church  pretended,  on 
the  Lord's  day ;  which  might  sometunesbe  on  the  14th,  but  was  often- 
er  another  day  of  the  month.  Hence,  we  cannot  reasonably  think, 
that  Iren^us  accounted  it  any  thing  else,  but  an  uncertain  tradition. 
Alex.  Do  you  not  remember  a  letter  of  Firmilian,  Bishop  of  Caasa- 
rea,  in  Capadocia,  in  the  year  256,  to  Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  cen- 
suring Stephen,  Bishop  of  Rome,  for  his  arrogance,  in  condemning 
Cyprian  and  the  African  Churches  ;  which  had  determined,  that  the 
baptism  of  heretics  was  not  to  be  held  valid,  and  in  treating  the  bishops 
who  adhered  to  this  judgment, with  the  most  insolent  contempt.  Those 
who  are  at  Rome,  says  Firmilian,  do  not  entirely  observe  all  things 
which  have  been  handed  down  from  the  beginning  :  and  the  Romans 
appeal  in  vain  to  the  authority  of  the  apostles  for  their  own  usages ; 
as  is  evident,  from  their  differences  about  the  days  of  Easter ;  and 
about  many  other  particulars  of  Divine  worship  :  and  all  things  are  not 
observed  there,  precisely  as  they  are  observed  at  Jerusalem.     He  adds 

*  Non  enim  de  die  tcautum  disceptcatio  est,  sed  et  de  ipsa  specie  jejunii,  siquidem 
aln  anum  sibi  diem  jejunandum  esse  putant,  &c.  Irenaeus  apud  Eusebium,  lib.  v. 
cap.  23. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  109 

that  in  many  other  places,  a  diversity  of  usages  obtained,  without  any 
infringement  of  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  catholic  church.  Hence, 
Firmilian  concludes,  that  Stephen  was  highly  culpable  for  breaking  the 
communion  between  the  Roman  and  the  African  churches.  To  the 
same  purpose,  Augustine,  Bishop  of  Hippo,  lays  it  down  as  a  rule 
that  whenever  we  find  customs  established,  that  are  neither  contrary 
to  religion  nor  good  morals,  and  such  as  have  any  tendency  to  pro- 
mote amendment  of  life,  we  ought,  instead  of  disapproving,  to  com- 
mend and  imitate  them ;  unless  our  compliance  would  give  such  offence 
to  the  weaker  brethren,  as  would  render  it  more  hurtful  than  benefi- 
cial. Again,  says  that  venerable  father,  I  have  often  perceived,  with 
pain  and  grief,  that  weak  christians  are  exceedingly  disturbed  by  the 
contentious  obstinacy  and  superstitious  timidity  of  some  brethren, who 
in  such  matters  as  cannot  be  certainly  determined,  either  by  the  au- 
thority of  the  holy  scriptures,  or  by  the  tradition  of  the  universal 
church,  or  by  utility  in  the  reformation  of  life,  raise  litigious  questions, 
as  thinking  nothing  right  but  what  they  do  themselves. 

Thus  it  appears,  that  in  the  ancient  church,  sacramental  communion 
was  not  hindered  by  different  usages  and  rites  in  religious  worship. 
It  becomes  the  dignified  and  prudent  christian,  as  Augustine  says,  to 
do  as  he  sees  the  church  do,  wherever  he  may  come.* 

RuF.  The  observations  of  Firmilian  and  Augustine,  are  very  proper 
as  applied  to  things  which  are  not  certainly  determined  by  the  holy 
scriptures,  and  which  the  church  of  Christ  has  not  professed  to  be  so  ; 
or,  as  applied  to  customs,  that  are  not  contrary  to  faith  nor  good 
morals.  But  the  rites,  on  account  of  which  we  may  warrantably  re- 
fuse to  have  sacramental  communion  with  some  churches  and  their 
members,  are  of  a  very  different  kind  ;  they  are  such  as,  we  know, 
have  been  found  and  declared  by  the  church  of  Christ,  to  be  contrary 
to  the  word  of  God  ;  to  be  idolatrous  and  superstitious.  When  Augus- 
tine described  the  points,  that  ought  not  to  hinder  sacramental  com- 
munion, as  matters  not  certainly  warranted  by  the  authority  of  the 
apostles,  or  rites  not  contrary  to  religion,  it  was  plainly  implied  that 
he  disapproved  of  having  such  communion  with  those  who  denied  doc- 
trines, certainly  warranted  by  the  apostolical  authority,  or  who  used 
rites  contrary  to  the  apostolical  religion. 

Who  can  Jaelieve,  that  Augustine  would  bid  a  christian  do  whatever 
he  sees  any  corrupt  church  do,  wherever  he  may  happen  to  come,  or  to 
practice  what  he  is  convinced,  in  his  conscience,  is  vain  supersti- 
tions ;  such  as  crossing,  sprinkling  holy  water,  praying  to  saints, 
bowing  to  images,  and  other  usages  which  he  may  see  some  churches 
practise  ?  The  truth  is  Augustine  was  speaking  of  churches,  which 
made  the  same  public  profession  ;  and  of  usages,  which,  on  all  sides, 

*Plea,  &c.,  pages  60,  61,  62,  63. 


110  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

were  considered  as  of  an  indifferent  nature,  and  in  which  there  was 
nothing  immoral  or  impious. 

§  31.  Alex.  The  primitive  church  did  not  consider  her  unity  as 
broken,  nor  a  sufficient  cause  of  interrupting  communion  as  afforded, 
by  imperfection  in  her  moral  discipline.  There  was  much  greater 
aberration  from  correct  conduct,  among  both  clergy  and  laity^  in  the 
third  century,  than  perhaps  would  be  tolerated  now  in  either,  by  any 
evangelical  church.  And  yet  the  most  learned,  laborious,  holy  men, 
the  most  stern  reprovers  of  public  declension,  were  the  champions  of 
one  communion,  and  the  most  strenuous  opposers  of  schism  and  sepa- 
ration. 

RuF.  It  is  generally  acknowledged,  that  though  the  church  had,  in 
the  third  century,  declined  from  her  primitive  purity,  she  still  retained 
the  severity  of  her  discipline.  The  exercises  of  this  discipline,  might 
be  less  rigid  or  exact  in  one  part  of  the  church  than  in  another  ;  as  is 
often  the  case,  in  different  congregations,  belonging  to  the  same  eccle- 
siastical body.  But  I  recollect  no  instance  of  any  part  of  the  ancient 
church  allowing  communion  to  be  held  with  avowed  opposers  of  any 
article  of  her  scriptural  profession  ;  and  therefore  sacramental  com- 
munion, in  the  circumstances  of  diversity  now  mentioned,  was  quite 
different  from  your  scheme  of  catholic  communion.  The  one  com- 
munion,  for  which  these  champions  contended,  was  a  communion  in 
one  prof  ession,  not  in  many  different  and  contradictory  professions 
of  the  christian  religion.  These  champions  agree  with  Rufinus,  who 
said,  "  The  holy  church  is  that  which  keeps  the  faith  of  Christ  en- 
tire."* Hence,  we  conclude,  that  it  was  then  reckoned  incumbent 
on  the  church  of  Christ,  to  hold  fast  the  whole  of  that  scriptural  pro- 
fession, which  she  had  attained  ;  and,  consequently,  that  she  could  not 
warrantably  admit  to  her  communion,  an  open  and  obstinate  opposer 
of  any  part  of  that  profession. 

"Whatever  strong  expressions  maybe  found  in  some  of  the  writings 
of  the  fathers  against  schism  ;  yet,  it  does  not  appear  to  be  their  de- 
liberate judgment,  that  all  such  as  declined  sacrmental  communion 
with  a  particular  church,  on  account  of  its  corruptions  in  doctrine, 
worship  or  government,  were  to  be  considered  as  separating  from  the 
catholic  church. 

"  It  is  Christ  alone,''  said  Ambrose,  "  whom  none  may  desert  or 
change.  The  faith  of  a  church  is. first  to  be  inquired  after  :  If  any 
church  rejects  the  faith,  we  are  to  leave  its  communion. ''f     ''  The 

*  Ilia  est  ecclesia  eancta  quae  fidem  Christi  integram  servat.  Rnfinus  in  Sym- 
bolum. 

t  Christus  est  solus  quern  nemo  deserere  debet,  nemo  mutare.  Fides  imprimis 
ecclesiae  quaerenda  mandatur.  Siquae  est  ecclesia  quae  fidem  respuat,deserenda  est. 
Ambrosius,  lib.  i.  de  poenitentia. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  Ill 

house  of  God,"  says  Jerome,  "  which  is  the  church,  does  not  exist 
in  the  walls,  but  in  the  truth  of  the  doctrines  taught  there."*  "  And 
they  are  the  church/'  says  Cyprian,  ''who  abide  in  the  house  of 
God."t 

Alex.  One  thing,  which  showed  the  catholic  communion  of  the  an- 
cients, was  this,  that  every  church  received  into  communion,  as  fully 
as  her  own  members,  ministers  and  private  christians,  from  any  or 
every  other  church,  provided  evidence  was  obtained  for  their  good 
standing  ;  such  as  letters  of  recommendation,  or  what  are  called  testi- 
monials or  certificates  from  their  respective  churches.  And  on  the 
other  hand,  ministers  and  private  christians  deemed  it  their  duty,  and 
made  it  their  practice,  to  join  in  communion  with  whatever  church 
they  might  happen  to  visit,  in  any  part  of  the  world.  J 

RuF.  This  agrees  with  what  I  have  already  represented  as  the  state 
of  the  ancient  church.  The  whole  church  of  Christ,  however  much 
the  parts  of  it  were  divided  by  local  situation,  was  considered  as  of 
one  profession,  and  of  one  communion.  7  here  was  no  more  difference 
between  the  most  distant  churches,  in  profession  or  practice,  than 
there  is  now  among  several  particular  congregations,  under  the  govern- 
ment of  one  Presbytery.  Hence,  it  was  then  the  purport  of  testimo- 
nials, which  persons  brought  from  the  most  distant  churches,  that  the 
bearers  made,  in  all  respects,  the  same  public  profession  of  the  faith, 
with  that  of  the  church  to  which  they  applied  for  admission  to  sacra- 
mental communion.  Whereas  a  testimonial,  according  to  the  pre- 
tended catholic  scheme,  would  run  in  very  different  terms  :  it  would 
only  attest  that  the  public  profession  of  the  bearer,  agreed  with  that 
of  the  church  to  which  they  came,  in  the  essentials  of  the  christian 
religion  ;  in  other  respects,  the  former  might  be  contradictory  to  the 
latter.  Testimonials  of  this  sort,  seem  to  have  been  unknown  in  the 
ancient  church. 

§  32.  Alex.  The  ancients  agreed  in  one  point :  viz  :  That  different 
communions  exclude  the  idea  of  unity.  Hence,  on  the  one  hand,  the 
Novatians,  Luciferians^  Donatists.  who  set  up  respective  communions, 
acted  on  the  avowed  principle,  that  the  catholic  church,  from  which 
they  withdrew,  had  ceased  to  be  the  church  of  Christ.  On  the  other 
hand,  they  who  condemned  the  separatists,  held,  that,  by  the  very 
fact  of  their  separate  communion,  they  threw  themselves  out  of  the 
church  of  God.  Both  sides  allowed,  that  two  churches,  refusing  com- 
munion with  each  other,  thereby  renounce  the  relation  to  each  other 
as  parts  of  a  common  whole  ;  that  is,  of  the  catholic   church.     This 

*  Domus  Dei  quae  est  ecclesia,  non  in  parietibus  consistit,  sed  in  do^matum 
veritate.    Ecclesia  vera  est,  ubi  vera  fides  est.    Hieronymo,  in  Psal.  xxxiii. 

fllli  sunt  ecclesia,  qui  in  Dei  domo  permanent.    Cypri.  Epist.  55. 

X  Plea,  &c.,  pages  130,  131. 


112  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

position  is  assumed  in  the  most  unqualified  manner,  as  incontroverti- 
ble bj  both  Cyprian  and  Augustine  in  their  writings  against  the  No- 
vatians  and  Donatists.  The  Novatian  sect,  which  carried  its  rigor 
so  far  as  to  shut  the  doors  of  re-admission  upon  the  lapsed,  refused 
to  hold  communion  with  the  rest  of  the  church  expressly  on  account 
of  her  alleged  corruptions.  Against  them  Cyprian  wrote  his  trea- 
tise on  the  unity  of  the  church  ;  the  whole  bent  of  which  is  to  show 
that  their  separation  was  unscriptural  and  unlawful,  and  that  they 
who  will  not  hold  communion  with  all  and  every  part  of  the  catholic 
church,  cast  themselves  out  of  her  pale,  and  forfeit  their  share  of  her 
benefits.  In  that  treatise,  after  showing  the  invisible  unity  of  the 
church,  Cyprian  then  demands;  "Does  he,  who  maintains  not  this 
unity,  imagine,  that  he  possesses  the  faith  ?  Does  he,  who  sets  him- 
self against  the  church,  cherish  a  confidence  of  his  being  in  the  church  ? 
Whoever  is  disjoined  from  the  church  is  joined  to  an  adulteress ;  is 
separated  from  the  promises  made  to  the  church.  Nor  can  that  man 
attain  to  the  rewards  of  Christ,  who  leaves  the  church  of  Christ.  He 
is  an  alien ;  he  is  profane  ;  he  is  an  enemy." 

These  things  are  spoken  of  the  Novatians,who  were  not  accused  of 
unsound  doctrine.     The  fact  of  their  separation,  though  under  the 
plea  of  of  cultivating  and  preserving  a  higher  degree  of  purity,  con- 
stituted their  offence,  and  drew  upon  them  the  general  indignation  of 
the  church  of  God.* 

The  Donatists  in  Africa,  treading  in  the  steps  of  the  Novatians,  set 
up  a  sectarian  communion  upon  the  very  same  pretext.  "  The  church," 
said  they,  ''  was  polluted  :  there  were  bad  men  in  her  fellowship  : 
their  consciences  would  not  permit  them  to  remain,  lest  they  should 
be  contaminated." 

Augustine  tells  these  Donatists,  that  Cyprian,  in  a  letter  to  An- 
tonianus,  shows,  "that  before  the  final  separation  of  the  just  and  the 
unjust,  we  are,  in  no  manner,  to  withdraw  from  the  unity  of  the  church, 
on  account  of  the  commixture  of  bad  men  with  good.'' 

"  You  maintain,"  continues  Augustine,  "that,  by  the  contagion  of 
wicked  Africans,  (that  is,  by  holding  communion  with  the  African 
churches,  w^hich  the  Donaists  pronounced  to  be  too  impure  for  their 
fellowship,)  by  the  contagion  of  wicked  Africans,  the  church  had  per- 
ished from  the  face  of  the  earth  ;  excepting  what  remains  in  the  party 
of  Donatists,  as  in  the  wheat  separated  from  the  tares  and  the  chaff. 
You  are,  therefore,  according  to  your  error,  or  rather  madness,  com- 
pelled to  embrace  in  your  accusation  all  the  churches,  of  which  we 
read  in  apostolic  and  canonical  scriptures.  But  these  Africans  whose 
sin  you  dare  falsely  charge  upon  other  nations,  are  either  innocent  or 
guilty.  If  they  are  innocent,  they  share  with  those  transmarine 
churches  in  the  kingdom  of  God.     If  guilty,  they  share  with  them,  as 

*  Plea,  &c.  pages  123, 124, 125. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  11? 

tares  with  the  wheat ;  nor  shall  they  be  able  to  hurt,  in  Africa  itself, 
those,  who,  although  knowing  their  character,  will  not,  on  their  ac- 
count, separate  themselves  from  the  unity  of  the  church." 

This  testimony  establishes  the  great  fact,  that  the  principles  and 
conduct  of  the  Donatists,  with  regard  to  communion,  christian  and 
ministerial,  were  at  war  with  the  faith  and  practice  of  the  whole  church 
of  God.  And  wherein  their  principles  and  practice  in  this  matter,  and 
their  reasoning  in  defence  of  both,  differ  from  those  of  such  churches 
as  will  hold  no  communion  but  with  members  of  their  own  sect,  let 
those  good  and  pure  intentioned  men,  who  defend  the  restriction,  most 
solemnly  consider.  In  one  thing  there  is  a  remarkable  difference. 
The  latter  acknowledge  as  true  churches  and  exemplary  christians, 
many  whose  communion  they  notwithstanding  reject.  But  the  for- 
mer saw  that  such  a  confession  overturns  the  very  foundation  upon 
which  a  separate  communion  is  reared.  They,  therefore,  carried  their 
principles  through  ;  and,  in  order  to  justify  their  schism,  maintained 
that  all,  but  their  own,  had  ceased  to  be  true  churches.  On  this  head 
the  palm  of  consistency,  at  least,  must  be  awarded  to  the  Donatists. 

The  sect  of  the  Luciferians,  so  named  from  Lucifer,  Bishop  of  Cag- 
liari  in  Sardinia  was  too  feeble  and  ephemeral  to  attract  regard  in  the 
general  question.  Their  case,  however,  tends  among  other  facts,  to 
show  the  strength  of  the  ties,  which  they  endeavored  to  break  ;  and 
to  establish  the  doctrine  of  the  obligation,  that  christians  are  under, 
to  hold  communion  with   all  and  every  part  of  the  catholic  church.''' 

RuF.  I  confess,  that  the  passages  you  refer  to  in  Cyprian  and  Au- 
gustine, taken  abstractly  or  by  themselves,  seem  to  assert,  as  you  ob- 
serve, in  the  most  unqualified  manner,  the  unlawfulness  of  separating 
from  the  Roman  and  African  churches.  But  how  are  these  passages 
to  be  understood  ?  Are  we  to  understand  them  as  meaning,  that  it 
was  unlawful  to  withdraw  from  the  Roman  and  African  churches  in 
any  case ;  and  that  all  christians  were  bound  to  believe,  as  they  be- 
lieved, and  to  practice,  as  they  practised,  in  matters  of  religion  ?  Are 
we  to  understand  these  venerable  fathers  as  directing  people  to  join 
themselves,  or  adhere,  to  certain  combinations  of  men  at  Rome  or  in 
Africa,  calling  themselves  the  only  church  of  Christ,  with  certain  men 
called  bishops  at  their  head  ;  not  allowing  any  to  judge,  whether  the 
matter  of  their  public  profession,  and  the  manner  of  maintaining  it, 
were  agreeable  to  the  word  of  Christ  or  not  ?  On  this  supposition, 
the  most  bigoted  Papist  never  carried  the  claims  of  the  church  of 
Rome  higher  than  these  fathers  did.  But  as  this  supposition  is  man- 
ifestly absurd  in  itself;  so  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  other  parts  of  the 
writings  of  these  fathers  in  which  they  represent  it  as  the  duty  of 
christians  to  examine,  whether  the  doctrine  and  order  of  particular 
churches  be  agreeable  to  the  scripture,  or  not ;  and  to  adhere  to  them 

*  Plea,  &c.,  pages  69,  70,  73,  75,  76,  139. 


114  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

or  withdraw  from  them  according  to  the  result  of  their  examination. 
To  this  purpose  many  passages  of  the  writings  of  these  fathers  may  be 
produced.  '  'Let  us  not  regard,"  says  Augustine  to  the  Donatists, 
"  what  I  say,  or  what  you  say  ;  but  let  us  hear  what  the  Lord  says. 
To  the  authority  of  Divine  Scripture  we  yield  our  consent,  our  faith, 
our  submission.  There  let  us  seek  the  church,  and  the  determination 
o£our  cause."*  Again,  he  says,  "In  the  scriptures  we  have  learned 
Christ,  in  the  scriptures  we  have  learned  the  church.  We  all  have 
the  scriptures  in  our  hands.  Why  then  do  we  not  all  retain  Christ 
and  the  church  ?"f 

Chrysostom,  on  the  gospel  of  Matthew,  has  these  words.  ''The  sa- 
cred scripture  explains  itself,  and  suffers  no  one  to  err.  Let  us  then, 
I  earnestly  beseech  you,  follow  the  sacred  scripture  accurate- 
ly."t 

"  This  is  the  cause,''  says  he,  ^'of  all  our  evils,  that,  in  the  discus- 
sion of  questions,  many  through  ignorance  are  unable  to  adduce  such 
testimonies  from  the  scriptures,  as  are  pertinent  to  the  purpose. 
What  pity  it  is,  that,  while  every  artificer  will  defend  his  art,  the 
christian  should  be  unable  to  give  a  reason  for  his  religions  profes- 
sion. "|| 

''Whence  does  any  one,"  says  the  same  father  in  another  place,  "who 
wishes  to  know  what  is  the  true  church  of  Christ,  attain  that  knowl- 
edge, but  by  the  scripture  ?  The  Lord,  therefore,  knowing,  that  in 
matters  of  religion,  there  would  be  so  great  confusion  in  the  latter 
days,  enjoins  christians,  who  desire  to  be  established  in  the  true  faith, 
to  betake  themselves  to  nothing  but  the  scriptures.  Otherwise  their 
regard  for  other  things  will  ensnare  and  ruin  them,  through  their 
ignorance  of  what  belongs  to  the  character  of  a  true  church  of  Christ  j 
leading  them  to  a  compliance  with  the  abomination  of  desolation 
which  stands  within  the  holy  places  of  the  church.  "§ 

*  Non  audiamus  hsec,  dico  ;  sed  audiamus,  hsec  dicit  Dominus.  Sunt  certe  libri 
Dominici,  quorum autoritate  utrique  consentimus,  utrique  servimus :  ibi  quseramus 
ecclesiam ;  ibi  discutiamus  causam  nostram.    Aug.  De  Unitate  ecclesise. 

t  In  scripturis  didicimus  Christum,  in  scripturis  didicimus  ecclesiam  Has  scrip- 
turas  communiter  habemus.  Quare  nou  in  eis  et  Christum  et  ecclesiam  commu- 
niter  retinemus.    Aug.  Epist.  116, 

X  Sacra  Scriptura  seipsam  exponit,  et  neminem  errare  sinit,  Oro  i^itur  et  ob- 
aecro,  ut,  ad  amussim,  canonem  sacrce  Scripturge  sequamur.    Hom.  13  Lat.  ver. 

I  Hoc  omnium  malorum  est  causa  quod  multi  nesciunt  Scripturarum  testimonia 
in  opportunis  rebus  adducere  absurdum  est,  quod  omnes  generatim  opifices 
quisqee  pro  suae  artis  professione  pugnet :  Christianus  autem  non  passit  suae  re- 
ligionis  offerre  rationem.    Hom.    16.  in  Joannem. 

§  Qui  vult  cognosere,  quae  sit  vera  ecclesia  Christi,  unde  cognoscit,  nisi  tantum- 
modo  per  Scripturas  ?  Sciens  ergo  Dominus  tantem  confusionem  rerum,  novis- 
simis  diebus  essefuturam.  ideo  mandat,  ut  Christiani  qui  sunt  in  Christianitate, 
Yolentes  accipere  firmitatem  fidei  verae ;  ad  nullam  rem  fugiant,  nisi  ad  Scripturas. 
Alioqui  si  ad  alia  respexerint,  scandalizabunter  et  peribunt,  non  intelligentes  qu® 
sit  vera  Ecclesia.  Et  per  hoc  incident  in  aboflfiinationem  desolationis  quae  stat  in 
ganctis  Ecclesise  locis.    Hom.  49.  in  Matthoeum. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  115 

From  these  and  similar  passages  we  are  led  to  infer,  that  it  was  the 
mind  of  these  fathers,  that  we  ought  to  have  sacramental  communion 
with  a  church  whose  public  profession,  and  whose  manner  of  main- 
taining her  profession,  we  have  found  most  agreeable  to  the  scrip- 
tures ;  and  not  with  any  that,  in  these  respects,  openly  oppose  such  a 
church. 

Thus,  in  order  to  avoid  charging  these  fathers  with  absurdity  and 
inconsistency,  we  must  not  understand  them  as  meaning  that  it  was 
simply  by  the  fact  of  separation  from  the  Roman  and  African  churches, 
that  the  Novatians  and  Donatists  cast  themselves  out  of  the  catholic 
church,  and  forfeited  their  share  of  her  benefits  ;  but  it  was  rather  be- 
cause their  separation  had  no  cause  or  no  sufficient  cause  on  the  part 
of  the  Roman  and  African  churches ;  and  a  criminal  cause,  on  the 
part  of  the  separatists. 

1st.  There  was  no  sufficient  cause  of  separation  on  part  of  these 
churches.  The  Novatians  had  no  scriptural  reason  to  blame  the  Ro- 
man church  for  receiving  into  communion  such  as  had  fallen  by  com- 
pliance with  heathen  persecutors,  after  they  had  given  satisfying  evi- 
dence of  repentance ;  the  sin  of  such  offenders,  was  not  greater,  than 
that  of  the  incestuous  person,  whom  the  apostle  directed  the  Corinthi- 
ans to  receive  upon  a  credible  profession  of  repentance.  With  regard 
to  the  Donatists,  the  immediate  cause  of  their  separation  was  the  case 
of  Cecilian's  ordination  to  the  office  of  Bishop  of  Carthage,  which  the 
Donatists  said,  was  illegal ;  because  Cecilian  had  been  ordianed  by  a 
traditor,  that  is,  by  one  of  those  who,  in  the  time  of  Diocletian's  per- 
secution, had  delivered  the  sacred  writings  to  the  magistrates  to  be 
burnt ;  and  because  he  was  said  to  have  hindered  victuals  from  being 
conveyed  to  the  christian  confessors  and  martyrs,  during  that  persecu- 
tion. But,  on  a  trial  of  Cecilian's  case  at  Rome,  he  was  acquitted ; 
the  witnesses  brought  by  the  Donatists  confessed  that  they  had  noth- 
ing to  say  againts  him.  But,  supposing,  that  the  personal  faults,  with 
which  Cecilian  was  charged  by  the  Donatists,  had  been  real,  and  that 
there  had  been  some  mistake  in  his  acquittance  by  their  opponents  ; 
yet  this  matter  could  never  justify  their  separation;  for  it  is  granted, 
on  all  hands,  that  the  private  and  personal  misconduct  of  some  within 
the  pale  of  a  church,  and  transient  mistakes  of  her  office-bearers  in 
the  determination  of  such  cases,  will  not  warrant  separation  from 
her  communion. 

2dly.  On  the  part  of  both  the  Novatians  and  the  Donatists,  there 
appears  to  have  been  a  criminal  cause.  On  this  subject,  these  fathers 
speak  with  sufficient  clearness  and  precision.  Cyprian  shows,  that 
Novatian  was  cruel  and  unreasonable  in  telling  those  delinquents, 
whom  he  exhorted  to  endeavor  to  efface  the  memory  of  their  offences 
by  their  tears  and  good  works,  that,  notwithstanding  all  their  en- 
deavors, they  must  die  out  of  the  communion  of  the  church.  See  a 
letter  written  by  Cyprian  in  the  year  252. 


116  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

Theodoret,  writing  concerning  Novatian,  says,  "That  he  called  the 
followers  of  his  sect  not  only  Novatians,  but  also  Cathari,  that  is, 
pure  ;  and  feared  not  the  charge  which  the  Lord  God  brought  against 
some  who  said,  each  of  them,  I  am  clean ;  touch  me  not :  adding, 
These  are  a  smoke  in  my  nostrils ;  a  fire  burniag  all  the  day :  for  the 
Lord  resisteth  the  proud."* 

To  the  same  purpose,  says  Isidorus,  "They  denominate  themselves 
Gathari,  on  account  of  their  pretended  purity;  for,  they,  glorying 
in  their  merits,  refuse  reconciliation  to  those  who  have  fallen,  how- 
ever penitent;  they  condemn  widows  who  marry,  as  adulteresses  ;  they 
represent  themselves   as  purer  than  others. "f 

They  also  obliged  such  as  came  over  to  them  from  the  other  parts 
of  the  christian  church,  to  be  rebaptized. 

The  Donatists  carried  these  evils  to  a  still  greater  height.  With 
regard  to  the  opinion  they  had  of  their  own  perfection,  Optatus,  a 
Bishop  of  Melevi,  in  Africa,  who  wrote  a  long  treatise  concerning  the 
schism  of  the  Donatists,  reproves  them  severely.  "Ye,"  says  he, 
''who  would  appear  holy  and  innocent  to  men,  whence  is  that  sanc- 
tity^  which  you  arrogate  to  yourselves  ?  a  sanctity  which  the  apostle 
John  dares  not  claim  :  for  he  says.  If  we  say,  ive  have  no  sin,  we 
deceive  ourselves,  and  the  truth  is  not  in  us.  Christ,  in  the  gospel, 
without  naming  you,  delineates  your  character,  in  the  parable  of  the 
Pharisee  and  the  Publican;  which  was  spoken  to  them,  who  trusted 
in  themselves  that  they  were  righteous,  and  despised  others. ''J 

To  the  same  purpose,  says  Augustine,  "I  forbear  to  speak  of  the 
nefarious  pride,  with  which  they  represent  the  character  and  manners 
of  themselves  and  their  followers,  as  free  from  every  stain,  from  every 
fault."  II 

*  Qui  su8e  sectse  asseclae  erant,  eos  non  solum  Novatianos,  sed  etiam  Catharous, 
id  est,  raundos  appellavit:  et  nee  Domini  Dei  accusationem  veritus  est,  quam  fecit 
adversus  nonnullos  dicentes,  mundus  sum,  ne  me  tangas ;  et  subjunxit,  Hi  suut  fu- 
mus  in  naso  meo  ;  ignis  omni  die  ardens — Dominus  enim  superbis  resistit.  Theod. 
Lib.  3.  Heret.  fabu.  citatus  in  Forbesii  Instructionibus,  page  710. 

tCathari  pro  munditis  ita  se  nominaverunt ;  gloriantes  enim  de  suis  meritis, 
lapsis  poenitentibus  reconciliationem  negant ;  viduas  si  nupserint,  tanquam  adul- 
teras  damnant ;  mundiores  se  coeteris  prjedicant.  Isidorus  Hispalensis.  Vide 
Forbesii,  Instructiones,  ibidem. 

X  Vos  ipsi  qui  sancti  et  innocentes  videri  ab  hominibus  vultis,  dicite,  unde  est 
ista  sanctitas,  quam  vobis  licentius  usurpatis  ?  quam  Jotiannes  Apostolus  profiteri 
non  audet,  qui  dicit :  Si  dixerimus,  quia  pecatutn  non  habemus  ;  nos  ipsos  decijnmus^ 
et  Veritas  in  nobis  tion  est. 

Sed  ut  apparet,  hoe  vobis  dictat  nutrix  vestra,  superbia,  quam  Christus  in  evan- 
gelio  testificatur:  qui  etsi  nomina  vestra  non  dixit,  per  similitudinem  tamen  ves- 
tras  mores  ostendit.  Sic  enim  scriptum  est :  Dicebat  Jesus  banc  similitudinem, 
propter  eos  qui  se  sanctos  putant,  et  contemnunt  cseturos.  Opta.  lib.  2.  contra 
Parmenianum* 

I  Omitto  dicere  quam  scelerata  superbia  inquiunt  neminem  esse  inter  collegas 
8U0S,  vel  seipsos  cum  aliqua  macula  vel  vitio  morum  inquinatos.  Vide  Forb. 
Instruc.  page  715. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  117 

^  Another  error,  furiously  contended  for,  by  the  Donatists,  was,  that 
sincere  christians  were  polluted  by  being  in  the  same  church  commu- 
nion with  the  wicked.  So  that  there  could  be  no  church,  where  the 
wicked  were  suflfered  to  remain. 

"Such  were  the  pride  and  insanity,"  says  Optatus,  "of  the  Donatists 
in  this  respect,  that  they  broke  in  pieces  the  altars,  on  which  the 
Catholics  had  offered  the  sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord ; 
kneaded  the  fragments  into  masses,  and  sold  them  to  the  Pagans. 
In  many  places,  they  exorcised  and  washed  the  walls,  within  which 
the  Catholics  had  celebrated  Divine  worship  ;  nor  would  they  permit 
the  bodies  of  the  Catholics  to  be  interred  in  the  publie  burial  places. 
They  threw  the  sacramental  elements,  consecrated  by  the  Catholics, 
to  the  dogs.  They  shaved  the  heads  of  the  priests  that  came  over 
from  the  Catholics  to  their  party,  as  having  been  defiled  by  the  other 
Catholic  priests :  observing  the  words  of  the  prophet  Haggai,  Those 
things,  which  an  unclean  person  hath  touched,  are  unclean. 
They  not  only  refused  to  eat  with  the  Catholics,  to  salute  them,  and 
to  be  called  their  brethren  ;  but  would  not  bear  to  converse  with 
them,  even  about  those  matters  of  religion,  that  were  in  dispute  be- 
tween them." 

"Augustine  complains  of  Proculianus,  a  Donatist  bishop,  that  he  re- 
fused to  receive  his  letters.  The  vain  pretence,"  says  he,  "of  having 
their  society  perfectly  purged  from  evil  men,  as  wheat  from  chaff,  is 
hurtful  to  themselves  :  for,  on  account  of  it,  they  dare  not  restrain  or 
correct  the  most  criminal  and  flagrant  disorders  in  the  societies,  over 
which  they  preside  ]  lest  they  should  be  obliged  to  confess,  that  there 
are  evil  men  in  their  communion."* 

A  third  Novatian  error,  professed  by  the  Donatists,  was,  that  by  the 
mistake  which  they  supposed,  was  committed  in  the  case  of  Csecillian, 
the  whole  African  church  of  the  Catholics,  was  polluted  and  unchurched  ; 
and  that  other  churches,  which  communicated  with  the  Africans,  were 
in  the  same  case.  So  that,  according  to  them,  there  was  then  no  true 
church  on  earth,  but  that  of  the  Donatists.  In  the  conference  at  Car- 
thage, "the  Catholics  stated,  in  opposition  to  this  error,  that  they  had 
found  abundance  of  passages  in  the  scriptures,  which  promised  that 
the  church  was  to  exist  in  all  nations,  and  in  the  whole  world  ;  as  also, 
that  in  the  Gospels  and  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  cities  and  prov- 
inces are  mentioned,  through  which  it  actually  spread,  after  its  be- 
ginning at  Jerusalem,  in  order  that  it  might  be  extended  to  Africa ; 
not  by  the  emigration,  but  by  the  increase  of  its  members.     They  de- 

*  Qu£Eritur  Angustinus  deProculiano  Episcopo  Donatisto,  quod  literas  ejus  nol- 
uerit  aceipere,  Epistola  169,  Isti  sunt  infelices,  qui  se  ob  omui  malorum  congre- 
gatione,  tanquam  triticum  a  paleis,  purgatum  esse  proesumaut.  Per  istam  vanita- 
tem  priBJudieaverunt  sibi,  ut  in  populis,  quibus  proesunt,  iniquissimas  et  iiagetios- 
issimas  turbas  non  audeaut  corripere,  ut  corrigantur ;  ne  per  hoc  cogantur  coufi- 
teri,  quia  mali  sunt.    Vide  Forb.  Instruct,  page  716. 


118  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

nied,  however,  that  they  had  found  any  testimony  in  the  Divine  ora- 
cles, intimating,  that  it  was  to  be  extinguished  in  other  parts  of  the 
world ;  and  that  it  was  to  remain  in  Africa  alone,  and  among  no  other 
people  than  those  of  the  Donatist  party."* 

From  the  passages  of  the  fathers,  now  produced,  it  appears  evident, 
that  they  considered  the  causes  of  the  separation  of  the  Novatians  and 
Donatists  from  the  churches  of  Christ,  in  Rome  and  Africa,  as  on  the 
part  of  these  churches,  either  false  or  insufficient,  and,  on  the  part  of 
the  Novatians  and  Donatists,  as  criminal ;  and  that,  in  condemning 
the  separation  of  these  sects,  as  cutting  them  off  from  the  catholic 
church,  the  fathers  had  respect  to  these  causes,  and  not  to  the  fact 
alone  of  their  separate  communion. 

It  was  a  just  observation  of  Cassander,  that  "It  is  not  separation  in 
itself,  but  the  cause  of  it,  that  makes  schism,  "f 

On  supposition,  that  there  had  been  a  particular  church,  as  repre- 
sented by  her  ministry,  and  by  her  courts  of  judicature,  persisting  ob- 
stinately in  a  course  of  defection  from  the  purity  that  she  had  attained 
in  doctrine,  worship  or  government ;  and  that  a  minor  part,  on  the  ac- 
count of  her  obstinacy  in  such  defection,  and  in  order  to  maintain  a 
judicial  testimony  for  the  purity  she  had  attained,  had  found  it  neces- 
sary to  make  secession  from  her  ministerial  and  sacramental  communion ; 
it  does  not  appear,  that  in  such  a  case,  the  ancient  church,  in  any  of 
the  first  three  centuries,  or  perhaps  even  in  the  more  degenerate  times 
of  the  fourth  and  fifth,  would  have  been  led,  by  her  received  principles, 
to  condemn  such  a  party,  as  chargeable  either  with  heresy  or  schism : 
— Not  with  heresy ;  while  it  was  supposed,  that  there  was  nothing  in 
the  matter  of  their  public  profession,  but  what  ought  to  be  held  by  the 
catholic  church : — Not  with  schism ;  since  their  declining  sacramental 
communion  with  their  brethren,  was  owing  to  the  refusal  of  these  breth- 
ren, to  concur  with  them  in  the  necessary  duty  of  maintaining  the  whole 
matter  of  their  public  profession.  In  this  case,  they  who  were  obsti- 
nate in  turning  away  from  their  former  scriptural  profession,  however 
great  their  majority,  would  have  been  the  separatists. 

§  33.  Do  you  bid  those,  who  reject  your  catholic  scheme  of  commu- 
nion, show  wherein  their  principles  differ  from  those  of  the  Novatians 
and  Donatists? 

The  difference  is  so  obvious,  that  it  seems  strange,  that  a  person, 

*  Narraverunt  Catholicise  iunumerabilia testimonia  invenisse,  quibus  promissa 
est  ecclesia  futura  in  omdibus  gentibus  et  toto  terrarum  arbe,  sicut  et  in  Evange- 
liis  et  in  actibus  Apostolicis,  et  in  Epistolis,  ipsa  loca  et  civitates  et  provincia 
leguutur,  per  quas  crevit,  in  cipiens  ad  Hierusalem,  ut  in  de  se  etiam  in  Africam, 
non  raigrando,  sed  cresendo  difiunderet.  Negant  autem  se  aliquod  invenisse  tes- 
timonium Divinorum  eloquiorum,  ubi  dictumT  est  eam  perituram  de  coeteris  parti- 
bus  mundi,  et  in  sola  Africa  Donate  parte  mansuram.  Vide  Witsii  Dissertationem 
de  schismate  Donatistarum,  cap.  7.  sect.  28. 

t  Separatio  non  facit  schisma,  sed  causa.    Lib.  de  offic.  pii  viri. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  119 

who  has  paid  any  attention  to  our  principles,  in  opposition  to  your 
scheme  of  catholic  communion,  and  to  those  of  the  Novatians  and  Do- 
natists,  should  confound  them.  We  believe,  that  a  particular  church, 
is  so  far  a  faithful  and  reforming  church,  as  she  is  holding  fast  the  scrip- 
tural profession  that  she  has  attained ;  and  is  therefore  refusing  to 
have  sacramental  communion  with  the  avowed  enemies  of  any  article 
of  that  profession.  Yet,  we  are  far  from  pretending,  with  the  Nova- 
tians and  Donatists,  that  such  a  church  is  altogether  pure,  and  without 
blemish.  When  we  have  been  led  to  exhibit  a  judicial  testimony  for 
truth,  and  have  found  it  to  be  our  duty  to  maintain  it,  in  the  way  of 
secession  from  churches  that  are  drawing  back  from  such  a  profession, 
even  though  they  still  have  what  are  called  the  essentials,  and,  it  may 
be,  more  than  the  essentials,  of  a  true  church  of  Christ :  in  such  a  case, 
we  find  it  necessary  to  decline  sacramental  communion  with  them,  in 
order  that  we  may  not  be  involved  in  the  guilt  of  acting  unfaithfully 
and  inconsistently  with  our  profession.  These  churches  may  be,  in 
the  sense  now  mentioned,  true  churches  of  Christ ;  though,  in  some 
particulars,  they  obstinately  refuse  to  make  such  a  public  profession, 
as  they  ought  to  make,  according  to  that  character ;  and  though  our 
persuasion  of  the  unlawfulness  of  going  along  with  them,  in  these  par- 
ticulars, keeps  us  back  from  joining  with  them  in  sacramental  commun- 
ion. Hence,  we  abhor  the  exterminating  principles  of  the  Novatians 
and  Donatists,  who  taught  that  the  catholic  church,  out  of  which  none 
could  be  saved,  was  limited  to  the  precincts  of  their  external  church 
communion.  Your  giving  the  palm  of  consistency  to  the  Novatians 
and  Donatists,  proceeds  upon  the  mere  assumption,  that  we  cannot  with- 
draw from  the  sacramental  communion  of  a  particular  church  or  her 
members,  without  denying  them  to  belong  to  the  catholic  church ;  a 
supposition  which  is  contrary  both  to  the  truth  and  to  the  judgment 
ctf  the  ancient  church. 

§  34.  You  say,  that  when  the  fathers  condemned  the  Novatians  and 
Donatists,  *they  declared,  that  by  the  very  fact  of  their  separation, 
they  threw  themselves  out  of  the  church  of  God,  or  the  Catholic  church. 
But  this  is  a  misrepresentation.  The  truth  is,  the  fathers  charged 
these  sects  with  holding,  that  the  churches  of  B.ame  and  Africa  were 
not  true  churches  of  Christ,  and  no  part  of  the  Catholic  church.  The 
schism  of  the  Donatists,  said  these  fathers,  turned  into  heresy.  What 
this  heresy  was,  Augustine  tells  us  in  the  following  words :  "The  Do- 
natists made  a  schism  on  the  account  of  Caecilian,  who  had  been  or- 
dained Bishop  of  Carthage  against  their  will.  But,  after  the  affair  of 
Caecilian  was  over,  their  schism  led  them  into  a  heresy ;  which  suppo- 
sed, that  the  church  of  Christ  had  perished  through  the  whole  world, 
except  in  the  party  of  the  Donatists."* 

*  Primum  propter  Csecilianuui  contra  suam  voluntatem  ordiantum  ecclesiae 
Garthagineusis  Episcopum,  scbistna  feccrunt.  Sed  post  causam  cum  eo  dictum 
e,t  finitam — in  heeresim  schisma  verterunt ;  tanquam  si  ecclessia  Ctiristi,  de  toto 
^errarum  orbe  perierit,  atque  iu  Africa,  in  Donati  parte  solum  remanserit. 


120  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

Thus,  Augustine  makes  the  heresy,  by  which  they  cast  themselves 
out  of  the  Catholic  church,  quite  a  distinct  thing  from  their  schism,  or 
separation  from  the  African  church.  But  it  does  not  appear,  that  the 
fathers  held,  that  the  Novatians  and  Donatists  did  not  belong  to  the 
Catholic  church.  According  to  them,  the  church  was  termed  Catholic^ 
not  only  on  account  of  her  great  extent  under  the  New  Testament, 
but  also,  on  account  of  the  profession  made  in  various  places,  of  the 
same  faith  in  Christ,  in  opposition  to  heretical  doctrine.  To  this  pur- 
pose, is  the  expression  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Smyrneans,  ascribed  to 
Ignatius:  "Where  Jesus  Christ  is,  there  is  the  Catholic  church."* 
"The  Catholic  church,"  says  Augustine,  "is  diffused  from  the  rising 
to  the  setting  sun,  by  the  splendor  of  one  faith,  "f  But  the  Novatians 
and  Donatists  were  not  charged  with  denying  the  true  faith,  excepting 
in  the  heresy  mentioned  in  the  passage  of  Augustine,  just  now  quoted  / 
and  it  does  not  appear  to  have  been  the  opinion  of  these  fathers,  that 
a  particular  church,  continuing  to  hold  fast  her  profession  of  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ,  though  separated  from  sacramental  communion  of 
another  particular  church,  ceases  to  be,  on  that  account,  a  part  of  the 
Catholic  church. 

Augustine  allows,  that  those  who  are  excommunicated,  may  belong 
to  the  Catholic  church.  "We  do  not,"  says  he,  "separate  from  the 
people  of  God,  those  whom,  by  deposition  from  office,  or  by  excom- 
munication we  reduce  to  a  lower  station,  for  the  exercise  of  repent- 
ance. "J  How  much  more  would  he  allow,  that  people  may  belong  to 
the  Catholic  church,  who  have  separated  from  the  sacranemtal  com- 
munion of  some  particular  church,  not  on  account  of  any  thing  com- 
mendable in  that  church,  but  only  on  account  of  its  corruptions,  which, 
nobody  will  say,  belong  to  the  character  of  the  Catholic  church  ?  I 
think,  it  cannot  be  shown  from  the  writings  of  the  fathers,  that  they 
ever  granted  the  refusal  of  the  Novatians  or  Donatists,  to  hold  sacra- 
mental communion  with  the  churches  of  Rome  and  Africa,  was  on  ac- 
count of  one  real  corruption,  habitually,  publicly,  and  obstinately  per- 
sisted in,  and  justified  by  those  churches.  Nor  can  it  by  shown,  that 
if  this  had  been  the  case,  and  sufficiently  proved,  the  fathers,  would, 
on  that  account  only,  have  condemned  their  refusal  of  communion 
with  these  churches,  as  rendering  them  outcasts  from  the  Catholic 
church. 

In  the  accounts  we  have  of  the  conference  before  mentioned  between 
the  Catholics  and  the  Donatists  in  the  year  411,  we  do  not  find  that 

*  Opou  an  e  Christas  Jesous,  ekei  catholike  ecclesia. 

+  Ecclesia  Catholica  a  solis  ortu  usque  ad  occasum  unius  fidei  splcudore  diffun- 
ditur. 

X  Neque  enim,  a  populo  Dei  separamus  quos  vel  degradendo  vel  excommunican- 
do,  ad  humiliorem  poenitendo  locum  redigimus.    Lib.  cont.  Donatistes. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  121 

it  was  denied  by  the  former,  that  the  latter  belonged  to  the  Catholic 
church. 

"As  to  the  question,"  says  Witsius,  "Whether  the  Catholics  or  Do- 
natists  belonged  to  the  Catholic  church,  scarcely  any  thing  seems  to 
have  been  regularly  or  expressly  determined  in  this  conference.  In 
general,  the  Catholics  produced  various  passages  of  scripture  in  order 
to  prove,  that  the  church  was  to  be  diffused  through  the  whole  world ; 
and  that  there  were  many  particular  churches,  belonging  to  it  founded 
by  the  apostles,  with  which  it  was  manifest  that  the  Donatists  did  not 
hold  communion.  To  this  observation  the  Donatists  made  no  reply. 
But  in  order  to  determine  the  question  between  them  and  their  oppo- 
nents, it  would  have  been  necessary  to  have  given  some  other  charac- 
ters or  marks  of  a  religious  society's  belonging  to  the  Catholic  church, 
than  the  word  and  sacraments ;  these  being  nearly  the  same  in  both 
comnunions.  But,  perhaps,"  says  Witsius,  "no  other  marks  or  char- 
acters can  be  given ;  and  he  tliinks,  that  it  was  justly  observed  by 
Baldwin,  that,  if  the  Donatists  communicated  with  the  Catholic  church 
both  in  doctrine,  and  in  rites  and  ceremonies,  though  they  did  not  com- 
municate with  persons,  whom  they  shunned  as  polluted,  their  schism 
seemed  to  be  only  a  schism  of  peevishness,  or  ill  humor."* 

The  best  confutation  of  the  scheme  of  the  Donatists  is  allowed  to  be 
the  six  books  of  Optatus,  bishop  of  Melvi.  This  work  may  be  con- 
sidered, as  the  most  authentic  representation  of  the  judgment  of  the 
fathers  and  of  their  way  of  reasoning  against  the  Donatists.  He 
wrote  towards  the  end  of  the  fourth  century.  If  the  fathers  had  con- 
sidered the  separation  of  the  Donatists  from  the  African  church  as, 
in  itself,  a  separation  from  the  Catholic  church,  Optatus  would  have  in- 
sisted on  this  as  a  principal  argument  against  that  sect.  How  little 
he  rested  on  this  argument  we  may  understand  from  the  account  which 
Du  Pin  gives  of  that  work.  The  first  book,  according  to  him,  con- 
tains the  history  of  the  rise  of  the  Donatist  party,  and  justifies  Cecilian. 
In  the  third  book,  Optatus  vindicates  the  Catholics,  from  the  charge 
of  having  caused  violence  to  be  used  against  the  Donatists.  In  the 
fourth  book,  he  refutes  this  opinion  of  the  Donatists,  that  the  ordinan- 

*  De  qunestione  quos  Ecclesia  esset,  an  penas  eos  qui  Catholici  dicebantur,  an 
penes  Donatistas,vix  quidquam  rite  atque  ordine  in  collatione  actum  esse  videtur. 
Catholici  quideni  generatim  multa  protulerunt  testimonia,  quibus  probare  niter- 
entur  ecclesiam  per  totum  tarrarum  orbem  diffundi,  multasque  esse  ad  ipsam  unicam 
pertinentes  Apostolorum  laborefundatas,quibus  Donatistas  non  communicare  man- 
ifestum  est.  Sed  ad  id  siluerunt  Donatistse.  Et  sane,  si  verum  fateri  volumus,  err 
at  qujestio  et  admodum  difficilis  et  parum  necessaria  :  quod  utrobique  propemod- 
um  eadem  sonoret  doctrina,  et  forma  rituum  consimilis  conspiceretur.  Unde  ad 
ecclesiam  di<;noscendam  aliis  indiciis  opus  fait,  quam  doctrinte  et  sacrameutorum. 
An  vero  printer  haee  solida  indicia  sint,  dubitari  baud  immerito  potest :  aut  fartas- 
sene  potest  quidam.  Et  vero  si  Donatistse,  ut  beneBalduinus,  cum  ecclesia  cath- 
olica  coramunicarent  tam  in  doctrina  fidei,  quam  it  ritibus  et  ceremoniis,  tametsi 
cum  personis  non  communicarent,  quas  tanquam  pollutas  refugiebant,  non  nisi 
morositatis  schisma  fuisse  Videtur.  Dessertatione  de  schisma  Donatistarum,  cap. 
7.  Sect.  35. 


122  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

ces  of  the  Catholics  were  to  be  shunned  on  account  of  the  personal 
sins  of  those  who  were  admitted  to  partake  of  them.  In  the  fifth 
book,  he  proves,  that  the  Donatists  were  criminal  in  reiterating  bap- 
tism. In  the  sixth,  he  exposes  the  impieties  and  sacrileges  of  the  Do- 
natists. It  is  only  in  the  second  book,  that  he  argues  against  them 
on  account  of  their  separation  from  the  church  :  and  here  the  princi- 
pal point,  which  he  proves  against  the  Donatists,  is,  that  their  party- 
was  not  the  catholic  church.  This  he  proves,  according  to  Du  Pin, 
from  the  extent  of  the  catholic  church ;  and  from  their  want  of  union 
with  the  chair  of  Saint  Peter;  an  argument,  which  can  have  no  weight 
with  any  but  Papists,  loho  hold  the  church  of  Rome  to  he  synonymous 
with  the  Catholic  church.  Du  Pin  does  not  say,  that  Optatus  asserts 
in  any  part  of  his  work,  that  the  Donatists  did  not  belong  to  the  Cath- 
olic church. 

With  regard  to  Lucifer,  the  friend  of  Athanasius^  and  the  zealous 
opposer  of  compliance  with  the  Arians,  it  is  probable  that  he  has 
been  unjustly  stigmatized.  Perhaps  justice  is  done  the  Luciferians 
by  two  late  writers,  Milner  and  Haweis ;  the  one  says,  that  if  the 
Luciferians  imbibed  the  spirit  of  Lucifer  they  must  have  been  firm 
and  sincere  in  the  love  of  the  truth  ;  and  the  other  reckons  the  Luci- 
ferians among  the  purer  party.  I  have  said  so  much  on  the  subject 
of  the  Novatians  and  the  Donatists,  because  it  has  been  long  the  fa- 
vorite common  place  of  time-servers  in  their  invectives  against  any 
whose  honesty  and  love  of  the  truth  led  them  to  dechne  sacramental 
communion  with  the  most  numerous  and  fashionable  party  on  account 
of  their  avowed  obstinacy  in  their  errors  and  corruptions.  It  is  a 
topic  that  has  been  much  used  by  the  Papists  against  the  Protestants ; 
by  the  Episcopalians  in  England  against  the  Non-conformists;  by 
those  who  defend  or  palliate  the  defections  of  the  established  church 
of  Scotland  against  the  Seceders  ;  and  now  by  the  advocates  for  tiie 
latitudinarian  scheme,  which  is  so  much  the  idol  of  the  present  day, 
against  all  who  dare  open  a  mouth  in  defence  of  such  a  church  com- 
munion as  is  necessary  for  the  maintaining  of  a  faithful  public  profes- 
sion of  the  truths  and  ordinances  of  Christ. 

It  is  also  of  importance  to  know,  that,  though  the  degeneracy  of  the 
church  was  begun  in  the  time  of  the  Novatians,  and  was  much  farther 
advanced  in  the  time  of  the  Donatists  ;  yet  the  fathers  had  not  then 
become  so  indifferent  to  the  profession  of  the  truth,  which  they  had 
attained,  as  they  are  supposed  to  have  been,  by  those  who  plead  for 
this  lax  scheme  of  church  communion.  Even  then,  there  were  footsteps 
of  the  flock,  which  we  ought  to  follow.  With  regard,  however,  to 
the  present  question,  it  might  have  been  suflficient  to  observe,  that 
the  communion,  which  the  Novatians  and  the  Donatists  opposed  in 
the  ancient  church, was  no  example  of  the  communion  which  is  now  con- 
tended for  ;  it  was  not  a  sacramental  communion  with  the  avowed 
and  obstinate  enemies  of  any  one  article  of  the  church's  scriptural 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  123 

profession.  It  cannot  be  pretended  that  the  lapsed  who  had  become 
penitent,  nor  Cecilian,  nor  any  of  the  churches  with  which  they  had 
communion,  were  such.  Nor  did  the  Novatians  or  Donatists  charge 
the  Catholics  with  having  sacramental  communion  with  such  enemies. 
The  charges  of  these  schismatics,  as  we  have  seen,  were  of  a  very  dif- 
ferent nature.  They  did  not  respect  the  public  profession  of  persons 
admitted  to  sacramental  communion,  but  their  gracious  state  and  their 
real  saintship. 

With  regard  to  the  obligations  of  christians  to  adhere  to  the  com- 
munion of  a  particular  church,  to  that  for  example,  of  Rome  or  of 
Africa;  Yitringa,  in  the  sixth  book  of  his  Observationes  Sacrae, 
thinks  that  Augustine  ought  to  have  stated  that  obligation  on  chris- 
tians, as  not  absolute,  but  hypothetical ;  that  is,  on  condition  that 
the  church,  of  which  they  were  members,  shall  continue  in  the  pro- 
fession of  the  truth ;  and,  in  his  judgment,  Augustine's  doctrine,  as 
it  led  men  to  account  the  obligation,  they  were  under  to  adhere  to 
the  communion  of  the  Roman  church,  absolute,  was  a  means  of  advanc- 
ing the  man  of  sin  to  the  throne,  and  of  his  establishment  in  it. 
From  the  view  we  have  taken  of  the  cases  of  the  Novatians  and  Do- 
natists, it  is  indeed  evident,  that  there  are  some  expressions  in  the  pas- 
sages you  recited  from  Cyprian  and  Augustine,  which  must  be  taken 
cum  grano  salis  or  with  some  limitation,  to  make  these  fathers  con- 
sistent with  themselves  and  with  the  truth. 

§  35.  Alex.  The  primitive  church  did  not  consider  variety  of  opin- 
ion and  practice,  with  respect  to  the  modifications  of  her  external  or- 
der as  inconsistent  with  her  unity.  It  appears,  that  the  form  of  church 
government  gradually  altered,  so  as  to  become,  in  process  of  time,  very 
different  from  the  apostolic  establishment.  Different  opinions  prevail- 
ed concerning  her  original. order.  In  the  fourth  century,  when  Epis- 
copacy prevailed,  contrary  sentiments  were  maintained  by  Jerome, 
Aerius  and  others,  with  great  acceptance  among  good  people.  Yet  all 
this  variety  of  opinion  and  practice,  in  the  matter  of  church  order,  did 
not  produce,  and  therefore  was  not  thought  sufficient  to  warrant  separ- 
rate  commuions.  Jerome,  Aerius,  and  their  adherents,  who  openly 
attacked  the  Episcopacy  of  their  day,  as  destitute  of  scriptural  or 
apostolic  sanction,  did  not  withdraw  on  that  account,  from  the  follow- 
ship  of  the  Catholic  church,  and  set  up,  like  the  Novatians  and  Do- 
natists, a  church  of  their  own.  Nor  was  there  any  rent  in  the  ancient 
church  on  the  account  of  different  views  and  practices  with  regard  to 
her  government.* 

RuF.  There  seems  to  have  been  no  great  difference  of  opinion  among 
the  fathers  concerning  church  goverment ;  if  the  statements  of  some, 
who  were  good  judges  and  much  conversant  with  the  ancient  \mters, 
are  to  be  regarded.     With  respect  to  the  period  of  the  first  three  cen- 

*Plea,  &c.,  page  76, 97,  98. 


124  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

turies  of  the  christian  church,  Jerome's  testimony  is  sufficient,  where 
he  asserts,  "That,  among  the  ancients.  Presbyters  and  Bishops  were 
the  same.^'' 

"Augustine  says,  that  there  is  no  difference  of  Divine  right  between 
a  Bishop  and  a  Presbyter.  Jewel  against  Harding  alleges,  that  the 
same  thing  is  asserted  by  Chrysostom,  Jerome,  Ambrose,  Theodoret, 
Sedulius,  Theophylact ;  and  Aerius  seems  to  have  asserted,  not  only 
that  there  was  no  difference  of  Divine  right  between  a  Bishop  and  a 
Presbyter ;  but  also  that,  in  his  time,  there  was  not  any  essential 
difference  between  them  introduced  as  yet,  by  any  ecclesiastical  law. 
In  ordination,  said  Aerius,  the  bishop  lays  his  hand  on  the  head  of 
the  person  ordained ;  so  does  the  presbyter.  In  the  government  of 
the  church  the  bishop  sits  in  the  throne  of  judgment ;  so  does  the  pres- 
byter. And  this  opinion  of  Aerius,  Epiphanius,  his  opponent,  could 
not  and  did  not  deny.  And,  no  doubt,  the  writings  of  Aerius,  if  they 
were  extant,  would  have  given  us  a  fuller  enumeration  of  those  things, 
which,  in  his  time,  were  common  to  bishops  and  presbyters,  even  by 
ecclesiastical  law ;  "*  and  would  have  shown,  how  the  bishops  aspired 
to  far  greater  power,  than  either  the  Divine  or  ecclesiastical  law  allow- 
ed them.  Many  ancient  churches  were  governed  by  presbyters  with- 
out a  Diocesan  bishop.  The  ministers  of  the  African  church  in  the 
fifth  century,  though  called  Bishops,  were  so  numerous,  that  their 
charges  could  not  be  more  extensive  than  those  of  Presbyterian  minis- 
ters in  our  day.  Thorndike,f  a  minister  of  the  church  of  England, 
acknowledges,  that  the  bishops  in  Africa  were  so  plentiful,  that  every 
good  village  must  needs  have  been  the  seat  of  an  Episcopal  church. 
In  Augustine's  time,  says  Bishop  Burnet,J  there  were  about  five  hun- 
dred bishopricks  in  a  small  tract  of  ground  :  these  could  be  no  more 
than  pastoral  charges.  In  Ireland,  Clarkeson||  shows  by  quotations 
from  Bernard  and  Baronius,  that  there  were  nearly  as  many  bishops  as 
churches  or  houses  appropriated  to  public  worship.  Palladius  was  the 
first  Diocesan  bishop  in  Scotland  according  to  an  account  of  Prosper 
annexed  to  Eusebius'  Chronicle.  "  Before  him,"  says  Joannes  Major, 
"  the  Scots  were  instructed  in  the  faith  by  priests  and  monks  without 

■^  Nullam  esse  jure  Divino  inter  Episcopuni  et  Presbyterum  differentiam,  Au- 
gustius  dicit,  Epist.  19.  Jewellus  contra  Hardint^um  allegat  veteres  idem  asseren- 
tes,  Chrysostom,  Hieronymum,  Ambrosium,  Theodoretum,  Seduliiim,  Tlieophy- 
lactum.  Puto,  Aeriura,  asseruisse,  non  solum  nullum  esse  jure  Divino  differen- 
tiam inter  Episcopum  et  Presbyterum  ;  sed  etiam  nullam  de  facto  hactenus  ipsius 
aetate  introductam  differentiam  essentialem,  Imposuit  manus  Episcopns,  inponit 
et  Presbyter :  Sedet  Episcopus  in  throno,  sedet  et  Presbyter,  inquit  Aerius  i  et 
hoc  negare  nonpotuit  Epiphanius.  Et  procul  dubio  is  extarent  scripa  Aerii,  plen- 
ioren  accepissemus  enumeratiouem  eorum  quas  comraunia  erant  sua  cetate  epis- 
copis  et  presbyteris  etiam  jure  ecclesiastico.    Altare  Damascenum,  page  204,  205. 

+  Right  of  churches,  p.  153. 

X  Conference,  p.  348. 

5  Primitive  Episcopacy,  p.  40. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  125 

bishops."*  Thus,  among  many  of  the  fathers,  and  in  the  churches  of 
Africa,  Scotland  and  Ireland,  there  seems  to  have  been  no  variety  of 
opinion  or  practice  as  to  church  government  before  the  year  430, 
when  Palladius  was  sent  into  Scotland. 

§"36.  Farther,  it  appears  that  the  witnesses  for  Divine  right  of  par- 
ity among  all  the  ministers  of  the  word  and  sacraments,  and  against 
the  superiority  of  the  of&ce  of  a  bishop  to  that  of  other  ministers,  be- 
gan in  the  fourth  or  fifth  century  to  maintain  their  cause  in  the  way 
of  separation ;  while  the  antichristian  apostacy  was  hastening  to  its 
height.  On  account  of  the  episcopal  government,  praying  for  the  dead, 
the  observation  of  set  fasts,  and  the  like  corruptions,  it  is  probable, 
says  Mr.  Calderwood,  that  Aerius  made  secession  from  the  Roman 
church. f  His  principles,  as  Mr.  Haweis  observes,  roused  an  host  of 
enemies.  The  reproach  of  his  falling  into  Arianism,  though  often  re- 
peated, appears  to  be  groundless.  This  imputation  is  supported  by 
the  authority  of  Epiphanius  only,  who  is  generally  allowd  to  have 
been  too  credulous  with  respect  to  reports,  and  who  was  remarkably 
attached  to  the  superstitious  customs  against  which  Aerius  bore  an 
open  and  faithful  testimony.  It  is  much  against  the  truth  of  this 
charge,  that  no  such  thmg  is  mentioned  by  the  ecclesiastical  histo- 
rians, Theodoret,  Socrates,  Evagrius,  or  Sozomen.  The  same  testi- 
mony against  diocesan  episcopacy,  was  afterwards  maintained  by  the 
Waldenses  and  Albigenses  in  a  state  of  separation  from  the  Roman 
church. 

The  Waldenses  and  those,  who  succeeded  them  in  the  same  profes- 
sion of  religion,  maintained,  that  in  the  church  of  Christ,  bishops  and 
presbyters  were  one  and  the  same,X  and  that  degrees  in  the  ministery  is 
the  image  of  the  beast  described  in  the  Revelation.  Ramerius  of  Pisa, 
a  Papist  and  an  enemy  to  these  witnesses,  who  wrote  about  the  year 
1250,  acknowledge,  that  this  sect  v/as  spread  about  every  where 
through  the  world,  and  had  been  of  a  long  duration,  having,  according 
to  some,  continued  from  the  time  of  Pope  Sylvester,  or  from  the  reign 
of  Constantine,  and,  according  to  others,  from  the  days  of  the  apostles.  § 
The  same  testimony  was  maintained  by  Wickliif  in  England  and  his 
adherents.  In  Paul's  time,  said  they,  two  orders  of  clergymen  were 
thought  enough  for  the  church,  viz.  priests  and  deacons :  the  other  de- 

*  Per  sacerdotes  et  monachos  sine  episcopis  Scoti  in  fide  erudiebantur.  These 
ministers  were  called  monks,  not  in  the  Popish  sense,  but  on  account  of  the  strict- 
ness of  their  lives,  and  their  frequent  retirement  for  devotion,  as  far  as  it  consisted 
with  the  public  work  of  the  ministry. 

t  Secessionem  ob  multas  coruptelas  in  ecclesiam  irrepentes  fecisse  probabile 
est.    Altare  Dsemas,  page  203. 

X  Decent  omnes  Presbyteros  esse  pares,  neque  unum  esse  alio  potestate  super - 
iorem.  Vide  Usserium  de  Christianarum  Ecclesiarum  successione  et  statu,  page 
107.  It  is  true,  Usher  seems  to  think  this  account  contrary  to  another,  which  re- 
presents them  as  holding  three  offices  in  the  church,  viz.  those  of  the  bishop,  the 
elder  and  the  deacon.  But  it  is  evident  that  when  they  spoke  of  the  parity  of  el- 
ders, they  meant  preaching  elders  whom  they  also  called  bishops ;  a  fact  which 
Usher  does  not  deny,  §  Idem,  page  210. 


126  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

grees  are  the  inventions  of  imperious  pride.*  They  wholly  rejected  all 
human  rites  and  new  shadows  or  traditions.  The  same  doctrine  was 
held  by  John  Huss  and  his  followers.  jEneas  Sylvius,  speaking  of  the 
Hussites,  says,  "One  of  the  dogmas  of  this  pestiferous  sect,"  so  the 
Papists  termed  these  faithful  witnesses,  "is,  that  there  is  no  difference 
of  order  among  those  who  bear  the  priestly  office." 

The  Bohemians,  in  their  confession  of  faith,  declare,  "That  it  is  ne- 
cessary for  the  church  to  have  pastors  learned  and  exemplary  in  their 
conduct,  as  well  to  preach  God's  word,  as  to  administer  the  sacraments 
and  watch  over  the  sheep  of  Jesus  Christ,  together  with  the  elders 
and  deacons,  according  to  the  rules  of  good  and  holy  discipline,  and 
the  practice  of  the  primitive  church." 

Here  is  a  large  body  of  witnesses,  who  continued  their  testimony 
against  Prelacy,  from  the  fourth  century  to  the  period  of  the  Refor- 
mation,  in  the  way  of  declining  sacramental  communion  with  that  cor- 
rupt body,  which  arrogated  to  itself  the  name  of  the  catholic  church. 
What  shall  we  think  of  the  scheme,  which  represents  all  these  witnesses 
as  casting  themselves,  by  the  fact  of  their  separation,  out  of  the  true 
catholic  church,  out  of  which  there  is  no  hope  of  salvation  ?  The  truth 
is,  all  that  these  wittesses  did,  in  declaring  against  and  withdrawing 
from  the  great  majority  of  the  visible  church  in  this  period,  was  no 
more  than  their  duty. 

Had  such  men  as  Chrysostom,  Augustine,  Jerome,  and  others  acted 
as  faithfully  in  opposing  Prelacy  and  endeavoring  to  restore  the 
scriptural  form  of  church  government  and  worship  ;  they  would  have 
stood  in  the  gap  before  the  Lord,  to  avert  the  tremendous  judgments 
that  were  then  coming  on  the  visible  church.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
general  corruption  was  encouraged,  and  the  ascendency  of  the  Papal 
hierarchy  hastened,  by  the  sacramental  communion  of  these  good  men 
with  the  avowed  and  ambitious  promoters  of  that  corruption.  This 
culpable  inattention  to  the  true  interest  of  the  church  of  Ohrist,which 
is  not  to  be  excused,  more  than  any  other  iniquity,  by  the  holy  and 
wise  permission  and  overaling  providence  of  God,  contirbuted  to 
bring  his  church  into  that  state  of  darkness  and  captivity,  in  which  she 
continued  for  more  than  a  thousand  years.  Thus  the  example  of  so 
many  eminent  christians  and  ministers  in  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth, 
in  the  fifth,  and  sixth  centuries  continuing  in  the  communion  of  the 
Roman  church,  when  it  was  evident,  that  she  had  adopted  a  system  of 
apostacy,  and  that  she  was  obstinately  determined  to  persist  in  it,  is 
so  far  from  being  an  argument,  as  many  have  considered  it,  against 
secession  from  churches  obstinate  in  a  course  of  defection,  that  it  serves 
rather  to  set  the  necessity  of  the  secession  of  the  faithful  from  such 
churches  in  a  strong  and  affecting  light. 

I  thought  these  observations  necessary  to  a  right  understanding  of 

*Catalog.  Test.  Tom.  2,  page  820. 


ALEXANDER  AND   EUFUS.  127 

the  sacramental  communion  which  obtained  in  the  ancient  church. 
But  with  regard  to  the  instances,  you  have  offered  of  a  variety  of 
opinions  and  practices  therein,  they  are  no  precedents  for  the  scheme 
of  catholic  communion  in  question ;  while  they  are  no  instances  of 
any  particular  church  having  sacramental  communion  with  avowed 
and  obstinate  opposers  of  what  had  been  adopted  by  that  church  as  a 
part  of  her  scriptural  profession. 

§  37.  Alex.  What  was  the  condition  of  God's  witnesses  for  truth 
during  their  struggle  with  Papal  Rome,  before  they  came  out  of  her  ? 
Until  their  separation  the  church  of  God  was  in  her.  If  as  you  sup- 
pose, it  be  unlawful  for  christians  to  participate  in  the  sacramental 
communion  of  churches  that  have  things  in  their  constitution  and  prac- 
tice, which  we  must  account  to  be  corruption ;  then  no  person  could 
lawfully  communicate  with  any  of  the  members  of  the  church  of  God, 
while  she  was  in  Papal  Rome ;  that  is  to  say,  God's  own  witnesses 
could  not  lawfully  communicate  with  his  own  church.* 

RuF.  It  is  necessary  to  attend  to  the  distinction  between  communion 
with  the  invisible  church  of  God,  and  communion  with  the  visible. 
Communion  with  the  church  as  invisible  or  with  true  christians,  hav- 
ing the  same  interest  in  Christ,  the  same  spirit,  the  same  faith,  can 
never  have  any  thing  sinful  it  it.  But  communion  with  the  church  as 
visible  is  so  far  sinful  :  as  it  is  a  communion  in  what  is  so.  After  it 
was  evident  that  the  church  of  Rome  had  adopted  the  Anti-christian 
system,  it  was  always  unlawful  to  have  sacramental  communion  with 
it.  But  it  does  not  follow,  that  there  are  no  members  of  the  church 
invisible  within  the  Yerge  of  her  visible  communion  ;  or  that  they  have 
not  communion  with  one  another  as  members  of  the  church  invisible. 

It  is  true,  there  is  hardly  any  church  that  can  justly  be  called  chris- 
tian which  is  so  corrupt^  or  with  which  it  is  so  criminal  to  have  sacra- 
mental communion,  as  the  church  of  Rome.  Yet  there  may  be  some 
within  the  pale  of  her  visible  communion,  who  have  a  saving  interest 
in  Christ,  and  whose  sin,  being  blotted  out,  no  more  deprives  their 
souls  of  the  benefit  of  the  word  and  ordinances  of  Christ,  still  remain- 
ing in  that  church,  than  Jacob's  lie  deprived  him  of  the  blessing. 

I  shall  only  add  one  observation  more  on  this  subject,  which  is 
that  as  soon  as  the  Roman  church  became  Anti-christian,  God  called 
his  people  to  come  out  of  her  ;  because  they  could  not  be  in  her  com- 
munion without  partaking  of  her  sins  :  accordingly,  for  this  reason, 
many  of  his  people,before  the  Reformation,  as  we  have  seen,  came  out 
of  her.  It  is  not  denied,  that  the  call  of  Providence  was  louder  at 
the  time  of  the  Reformation,  and  that,  after  the  Papists  had  confirmed 
their  errors  and  abominations  by  the  decrees  of  the  council  of  Trent, 
and  after  people  had  better  opportunities  of  knowing  the  truth  and  of 
joining  themselves  to  a  purer  communion  ;  the  guilt  and  danger  of 

*  Plea,  &c.,  pages  324,  325. 


128  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

continuing  in  the  communion  of  the  church  of  Rome  was  far  greater. 
But  it  does  not  follow,  either  that  it  was  not  sinful  to  continue  in  her 
communion  before  the  era  of  the  Reformation ;  or  that  now  there  are 
none  of  God's  people  within  the  precincts  of  her  external  communion. 
Even  when  Spiritual  Babylon  is  very  near  her  final  downfall,  the  call 
is  given,  "  Come  out  of  her  my  people,"  Rev.  xviii.  4. 

Alex.  Our  conversation  has  been  sufficiently  protracted  in  taking  a 
survey  of  the  history  of  the  ancient  church.  Our  inquiry  into  the 
principles  and  approved  practice  of  the  Reformed  churches  with  re- 
gard to  sacramental  communion  must  be  reserved  for  another  oppor- 
tunity. 


DIALOaUE  VI. 

Of  the  reformation  from  Popery — The  principles  on  which  our  forefathers  separ- 
ated from  the  church  of  Rome,  contrary  to  this  scheme  of  catholic  communion 
— The  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  churches,  concerning  the  marks  of  a  true 
church,  contrary  to  this  scheme — How  the  expression  true  church  is  to  be  un- 
derstood, as  it  is  used  in  the  Confessions  of  the  Reformed  churches— The  de- 
sign of  the  Confessions  of  the  Reformed  churches  contrary  to  this  scheme  of 
catholic  communion — Also,  the  harmony  of  these  Confessions — An  article  of 
the  Augsburgh  Confession  concerning  the  Lord's  Supper,  considered— Some 
words  of  the  Saxon  Confession  and  Luther  and  Melancthou,  considered — 
Several  plans  of  union  proposed  among  the  Protestant  churches  different 
from  this  scheme  of  catholic  communion  in  question — An  account  of  Calvin's 
proposal  and  of  the  agreement  of  the  churches  in  Poland — The  communion  of 
the  Reformed  church  of  Holland  with  other  Reformed  churches,  considered. 

§  38.  RuF.  The  Reformation  from  Popery  was  a  revolution  in  the 
state  of  the  church  not  less,  but  perhaps  more  wonderful,  than  that 
which  took  place,  when  a  christian  Prince  was  first  raised  to  the  im- 
perial throne.  The  evils  from  which  the  church  was  delivered  by  Con- 
stantine  were  more  external ;  but  the  Reformation  was  a  deliverance 
from  internal  corruptions ;  and  manifestly  accomplished  by  means  of 
the  word  and  Spirit  of  God.  The  object  of  the  Reformation  was,  first 
to  turn  men's  attention  to  the  original  principles  upon  which  the 
churchof  Christ  was  constituted  ;  calling  them  to  try  all  her  doctrines, 
her  modes  of  worship,  and  her  forms  of  government,  by  the  holy  scrip- 
tures as  the  supreme  rule  ;  and  to  set  aside  human  authority  and  tra- 
ditions :  secondly,  to  retain  whatever  conformity  to  the  supreme  rule 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  129 

the  church  had  attained  in  doctrine,  worship,  and  government :  and, 
lastly,  to  make  farther  progress  in  reformation. 

Alex.  This  brings  to  my  mind  what  I  proposed  at  the  close  of  our 
former  conversation  ;  which  was  to  take  a  view  of  the  principles  and 
practice  of  the  Protestant  churches  with  regard  to  sacramental  com- 
munion. 

Rup.  I  am  persuaded,  that  the  scheme  of  catholic  communion  plead- 
ed for,  is  contrary  to  the  principles  and  approved  practice  of  the  Pro- 
testant churches ;  for  this  persuasion,  I  shall  offer  several  reasons. 

§  39.  The  first,  that  occurs  to  me,  is  the  inconsistency  of  this 
scheme  with  the  secession  of  these  churches  from  the  church  of  Rome. 
They  separated  from  the  church  of  Rome  on  account  of  her  corrup- 
tions. Her  making  human  tradition  the  rule  of  faith  as  well  as  the 
holy  scriptures ;  her  ascribing  merit  to  men's  works,  and  teaching  them 
to  trust  in  them  as  the  ground  of  their  justification  before  God ;  her 
transubstantiation  and  purgatory ;  her  general  faith ;  these  and  many 
other  erroneous  doctrines  maintained  in  her  public  profession  were  con- 
sidered by  our  reformers  as  sufficient  to  justify  their  departure  from 
her  communion. 

In  this  judgment,  Protestants  proceeded  upon  the  authority  of  such 
passages  of  scripture  as  the  following:  1  Tim.  vi.  3,  "If  any  man 
teach  otherwise  and  consent  not  to  wholesome  words,  even  the  words 
of  our  Lord  Jesus,  and  to  the  doctrine  according  to  godliness — from 
such  withdraw  thyself."  2  Thess.  iii,  14,  "If  any  man  obey  not  our 
word  by  this  epistle,  note  that  man,  and  have  no  company  with  him,  that 
he  may  be  ashamed."  1  Tim.  iii,  15,  "The  house  of  God,  which  is 
the  church  of  the  living  God,  is  the  pillar  and  ground  of  truth  i"  an 
expression  intimating  the  duty  of  the  church  to  exhibit  and  maintain 
in  her  profession  the  truths  revealed  in  the  word  of  God ;  as  pillars  in 
ancient  times  exhibited  to  public  view  the  edicts  of  rulers  that  were 
affixed  to  them.  2  Tim.  i.  13,  "Hold  fast  the  form  of  sound  words, 
which  thou  hast  heard  of  me  in  faith  and  love  which  is  in  Christ 
Jesus;"  a  command  which  as  it  binds  every  minister  to  hold  fast  the 
form  of  sound  words  in  his  official  capacity  ;  so  it  binds  every  particu- 
lar church,  as  such  to  hold  it  fast  in  her  public  profession. 

Our  Reformers  considered  corruptions  in  the  worship  of  God  obsti- 
nately persisted  in  as  a  sufficient  reason  of  separation  from  the  com- 
munion of  the  Popish  church  ;  while  they  believed  such  religious  wor- 
ship, as  was  according  to  the  commandments  of  men,  to  be  vain  and 
false  worship ;  according  to  Matth.  xv.  9,  "In  vain  do  ye  worship  me, 
teaching  for  doctrine  the  commandments  of  men."  While  they  re- 
membered, that  God  forbade  his  people  to  go  up  to  Bethaven,  to  join 
with,  or  countenance,  the  superstitious  worship  there.  Hos.  iv.  35, 
"Go  not  up  to  Bethaven."  The  name  of  the  place  had  been  Bethel, 
the  house  of  God ;  but  now  from  the  worship  of  idols,  it  was  become 
Bethaven,  the  house  of  vanity,  his  people  were  not  allowed  to  go  up 
9 


130  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

to  it,  nor  to  join  with  the  worshipers  there  (even  in  what  might  be 
accounted  lawful,)  in  swearing,  ''The  Lord  liveth."  With  regard  to 
the  government  of  the  church  of  Rome,  both  its  form  and  administra- 
tion were  such  as  could  not  warantablj  be  submitted  to,  as  being  con- 
trary to  what  is  revealed  in  the  word  of  God,  concerning  the  ofl&cers 
he  has  appointed  in  his  house  ;  concerning  the  authority  he  hath  given 
them  3  and  concerning  the  exercise  of  that  authority,  for  the  edifica- 
tion, and  not  for  the  destruction  of  his  people.  The  contrariety  of 
her  government  to  the  scripture,  in  each  of  these  respects,  have  been 
shown  abundantly  by  our  divines^  who  have  written  defences  of  the 
Reformation.  It  is  granted  by  these  writers,  that  any  one  of  the  three 
evils  now  specified,  as  it  prevailed  in  that  church,  would  have  been  a 
sufficient  ground  for  our  secession  from  it.  ''These  evils,''  says  Tur- 
retine,  "are  so  great  and  dangerous,  that  if  any  one  of  them  be  found 
in  any  society,  which  glories  in  the  name  of  a  church,  il  would  be 
necessary  for  us  to  make  secession  from  it,  and  to  decline  its  com- 
munion."* 

Now,  supposing  one  of  the  Protestant  churches  to  be  involved  in 
one  or  more  of  these  evils,  though  in  a  much  less  degree  than  that,  in 
which  they  have  prevailed  in  the  church  of  Rome  ;  and  supposing  that 
the  ordinary  means,  or  such  as  the  Protestants  used  with  the  church 
of  Rome,  had  been  tried  for  reclaiming  such  a  particular  church,  with- 
out effect ;  and  that,  instead  of  reforming,  she  had  become  more  ob- 
stinate in  avowing  and  justifying  her  corruptions  :  the  principles  of 
the  Reformers,  would  have  led  them  to  withdraw  from  such  a  church, 
and  to  decline  her  sacramental  communion,  f 

This  appears,  from  the  passages  of  scripture  already  mentioned ; 
and  others,  which  they  considered  as  applicable  to  their  secession  from 
the  church  of  Rome. 

"They  who  put  free  will,"  says  one  of  the  first  Reformers,  ''for 
free  grace,  reason  for  faith,  their  own  opinions  for  the  mind  of  the 
Spirit;  the  doctrine  of  men  for  the  sacred  scriptures  ;  who  talk  of 
nothing  but  the  primacy  of  Peter ;  do,  by  such  means,  delude  and 
draw  away  men  from  the  simplicity  of  the  word  of  God ;  and,  there- 
fore, although  the  professors,  who  are  chargeable  with  such  things, 
think  themselves  the  holiest  of  men,  and  extirpators  of  heresy  ;  yet, 


*  Hoec  tria  ita  sunt  gravicla  et  periculosa,  ut,  si  unum  vel  alterum  duntaxat  in 
ccetii  aliquo,  qui  Ecclesipe  nomine  gloriatur,  obtineat,  necessarlo  ab  illo  nobis  sit 
secedendum,  nee  ulla  possit  cum  illo  communio  coli.  De  necessaria  secessione  ab 
Eccl.  Rom.  Disput.  v.  sect.  2. 

t  Hence,  a  judicious  divine  expresses  himself,  concerning  corruption  in  the  wor- 
ship of  God,  in  the  following  decisive  though  guarded  manner  :  "I  humbly  think," 
says  he,  "it  may  be  evident,  that  wherever  there  is  any  corruption  in  worship,  it  is 
a  sufficient  ground  of  separation  from  communion  with  the  worshipers  in  their 
worship,  in  case  they  refuse  to  reform."    Mr.  Wilson's  Defence,  &c.  ijages  55,  56. 


ALEXANDER  AND   RUFUS.  131 

we  are  to  avoid  them,  as  pernicious  impostors."*  For  whatever 
opinion  is  contrary  to  any  article  of  the  sound  or  scriptural  profession 
of  any  church,  is  contrary  to  the  wholesome  words  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  to  the  doctrine  which  is  according  to  godliness.  The 
scriptural  principle,  that  christians  ought  to  use  no  other  forms  or 
means  of  religious  worship,  than  such  as  God  hath  appointed  in  his 
word,  is  as  truly  opposite  to  crossing  in  baptism,  or  any  other  form  or 
means  of  religious  worship,  devised  by  men,  as  to  the  worship  of  ima- 
ges, or  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  The  office  of  Lord  Bishop,  is  as  little  to 
be  found  in  scripture,  as  that  of  a  Pope.  Hence,  the  Non-conformists 
in  England  were  sufiiciently  vindicated,  in  their  withdrawing  from  the 
sacramental  communion  of  the  establihed  church  there,  by  the  reason 
which  justified  their  secession  from  the  Romish  church. 

The  errors  of  the  Romish  church,  Sir,  are  not  peculiar  to  her ;  they 
are  such  as  other  churches  may  fall  into.  She  bears  the  character  of 
Spiritual  Babylon,  out  of  which  God's  people  were  called  to  come, 
especially  on  account  of  her  incurable  obstinacy  in  corruption  ]  in 
which  respect,  the  literal  Babylon  of  old,  was  a  type  of  her  :  Jerem. 
li.  9,  "We  would  have  healed  Babylon,  but  she  is  not  healed  :  forsake 
her."  Papal  Rome  is  set  up,  in  the  righteous  judgment  of  God,  as 
a  tremendous  example  and  warning  to  other  churches,  of  the  danger 
of  apostacy,  from  any  profession  of  Divine  truth  which  they  have  at- 
tained. 

However  much  less  the  evils  of  the  Protestant  churches  may  be, 
than  those  of  the  Popish  church;  if  any  of  them,  like  that  church, 
apostatize  from  any  part  of  the  public  scriptural  profession  that  they 
had  attained ;  and  if  they  continue  obstinate,  after  the  ordinary  scrip- 
tural means  of  reclaiming  them  have  been  used,  it  will  become  at  last, 
the  duty  of  the  faithful,  to  withdraw  from  their  sacramental  commun- 
ion, as  well  as  it  was  their  duty  to  withdraw  from  that  of  the  church 
of  Rome. 

That  our  reformers  would  not  have  allowed  us  to  have  sacramental 
communion  with  a  particular  church,  in  the  case  now  supposed,  appears, 
from  their  representation  of  the  evils  implied  in  communicating  with 
the  church  of  Rome;  such  as,  Disseinhling  the  truth;  the  appear- 
ance of  joining  tvith  others  in  the  jyrofession  of  falsehood ;  par- 
taking of  the  errors  and  abominations  of  the  Romish  church ;  the 
denial  of  Christ;  tempting  the  patience  of  God ;  open  rebellion 
against  his  commaiids  ;   offending  weak  b7^ethren.f     Now  suppos- 

*  Qui  liberum  arbitrium  liabent  pro  gratia,  rationem  pro  fide,  opiniones  pro 
judicio  Spiritus,  doctrinas  bominum  pro  scriptura  sacra,  quibus  nibil  in  ore  est 
nisi  primatus  Petri,  Quoe  omnia  dementant  homines  et  a  verbi  Dei  simplicitate 
abducunt :  Quare  etsi  talium  rerum  professores  se  omnium  sanctissimos  putent, 
ct  hjereticae  pravitatis  (ut  loquuutur)  extirpatores,  caveudi  tamen  sunt  et  fugiendi 
tanquam  noxii  impostores.    Marloratus  iu  1,  Tim.  vi.  4,  5. 

+  Nemo,  cognita  semel  veritate,  vel  in  Papotu  manere,  vel  ad  ilium  deflcere  potest 
sine  gravissimis  peccatis,  quae  cum  salu*-e  amstata,  puta,  Dissimulatione  veritatis, 


132  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

ing,  that  in  the  public  profession  of  a  Protestant  church,  only  one  or 
two  of  the  truths  of  God's  word  are  denied  ;  and  supposing,  that  Pro-t- 
estant  church  to  be  equally  obstinate  as  the  church  of  Rome,  in  the 
denial  of  the  truths  of  God  and  in  holding  some  contrary  error ;  the 
truth  so  denied  being  contained,  not  only  in  the  scripture,  but  in  the 
matter  of  her  former  public  profession  :  it  cannot  be  reasonably  de- 
nied that,  in  this  case,  that  church  is  gone  into  a  course  of  defection ; 
and  that  whosoever,  after  having  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth 
so  denied,  communicates  with  her,  appears  to  join  with  her  in  her 
error  :  declining,  in  the  very  act  of  communicating,  the  public  con- 
fession of  the  contrary  truth ;  and,  in  such  dissimulation,  walks  not 
uprightly,  according  to  the  truth  of  the  gospel )  grieves  the  Spirit  of 
God  ;  and  causes  the  offence  or  stumbling  of  weak  brethren. 

§  40.  Alex.  The  Papists  said,  that,  in  separating  from  the  church 
of  Rome,  the  Protestants  left  the  true  church ;  and  did  not  belong  to 
any  true  church.  To  repel  this  charge,  it  was  necessary  for  our  re- 
formers, to  determine  from  the  word  of  God,  what  constitutes  the  true 
church ;  and  to  give  its  distinctive  marks  ;  and  to  show,  that  they  be- 
longed to  it  themselves.  In  doing  this,  they  fixed  on  such  charac- 
teristics as  are  common,  even  at  the  present  hour,  to  all  the  churches 
of  Reformed  Christendom,  which  have  not  lost  the  faith  of  the  Trinity 
and  the  atonement.  These  characteristics,  are  generally  summed  up 
in  their  confessions,  under  two  heads  :  1st,  The  pure  doctrine  of  the 
gospel :  2dly,  The  right  administration  of  the  sacraments.  It  is  suffi- 
cient for  the  true  unity  of  the  church,  says  the  Augsburgh  Confession, 
to  agree  in  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel,  and  the  right  use  of  the  sacra- 
ments. What  is  meant  by  the  pure  gospel,  and  the  due  administra- 
tion of  the  sacraments,  must  be  ascertained  by  the  confessions  of  the 
Protestant  churches.  We  conclude,  then,  that  all  the  churches  of 
Reformed  Christendom,  ought  to  have  sacramental  communion  among 
themselves.* 

RuF.  The  Papists  are,  indeed,  very  unjust,  in  their  inference,  that 
because  the  Protestants  left  the  communion  of  the  particular  church 
of  Rome,  therefore,  they  left  the  communion  of  the  Catholic  church. 
Against  this  opinion,  the  several  confessions  of  the  Protestant  churches 
harmoniously  testify.  They  all  agree,  that  the  way  in  which  we  are 
to  judge,  whether  any  religious  society  be  a  part  of  the  Catholic  church 
is  not  by  its  local  situation,  nor  by  its  connection  with  another  religi- 
ous society ;  but,  by  the  characteristics  which  you  have  mentioned. 
Your  scheme  of  catholic  communion  seems,  in  this  respect,  to  agree 
with  the  Papists ;  while  it  implies,  that  though  a  particular  church 

Bimulatione  mendacii,  participatione  errorum  et  sordium  ecclesise  Romanse  Christi 
abnegatione,  tentatione  patientise  Dei,  rebellione  aperta  contra  ejus  mandata,  et 
Scandolo  infirmorum.  Turretinus  De  Necessariasecessione,  &e.  Dispnt.  vi.  sect  35. 

*  Plea,  &c.,  pages  143,  144. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  133 

have  these  marks,  yet,  while  that  church  refuses  to  have  sacramental 
communion  with  another  on  account  of  its  corruptions,  these  marks 
are  not  sufficient  to  prove  the  former  to  be  a  part  of  the  Catholic 
church  of  Christ.  For  you  still  suppose,  that  to  refuse  sacramental 
communion  with  a  corrupt  particular  church,  for  no  other  reason  than 
because  it  is  corrupt,  is  to  refuse  communion  with  the  Catholic  church : 
just  as  the  Papists  say,  that  to  refuse  the  sacramental  communion  of 
the  particular  church  of  Rome,  is  to  refuse  the  communion  of  the 
Catholic  church. 

You  justly  observe,  that  "  what  is  meant  by  the  pure  gospel,  and 
the  right  administration  of  the  sacraments,  is  to  be  ascertained  by  the 
confessions  of  the  Protestant  churches. "  But  if  these  inarks  are  to 
be  understood  ;  and  if  we  are  to  regulate  our  sacramental  commun- 
ion by  them ;  then,  we  ought  to  have  no  such  communion  with  the 
avowed  and  obstinate  opposers  of  any  article  of  these  confessions, 
though  it  be  non-essential ;  especially,  if  it  be  an  article  in  which  they 
all  harmonize.  There  are,  however,  doctrines,  in  which  all  these  con- 
fessions harmonize,  which  you  will  hardly  allow  to  be  essential  ]  since 
they  are  denied  by  many  whom  we,  in  charity,  judge  to  be  sincere 
christians  :  such  as,  That  Christ  is  the  Son  of  Grod,  not  by  his  media- 
tory office,  but  by  eternal  generation  ;  that  there  is  a  fiducial  applica- 
tion of  Christ  to  ourselves,  on  the  single  ground  of  the  grant  and  prom- 
ise of  the  gospel,  in  the  nature  of  saving  faith  ;  that  God  is  to  be 
worshiped  by  no  other  ways  or  means,  than  those  which  he  has  ap- 
pointed in  his  word  ;  that  the  infants  of  regular  members  of  the  visible 
church,  ought  to  be  baptized  ;  that  ministers  ought  to  be  chosen  by 
the  suffrages  of  the  church. 

According  to  your  catholic  scheme  we  are  bound  to  have  sacramen- 
tal communion  with  the  avowed  and  obstinate  opposers  of  such  non- 
essential articles  ;  and  consequently,  with  some  to  whom  it  is  mani- 
fest, that  some  of  these  marks,  according  to  the  description  of  them  in 
their  confessions,  do  not  agree  ;  and  therefore,  with  whom,  according 
to  these  marks,  we  ought  not  to  have  sacramental  communion.  These 
marks  are  more  fully  expressed  in  the  old  Scots'  Confession  of  Faith. 
The  first  is,  "The  true  preaching  of  the  word  of  God,  as  he  hath  re- 
vealed himself  unto  us,  in  the  writings  of  the  apostles  and  prophets." 
Tl^  true  preaching  of  the  word,  is  here  considered,  not  only  as  it  is 
the  instituted  mean  of  gathering  and  constituting  the  visible  church ; 
but  as  it  includes  the  profession  and  maintenance  of  the  true  doctrine 
and  the  true  faith.  This  mark  of  a  true  church  includes  the  judicial 
assertion  of  the  truth,  and  the  judicial  condemnation  of  the  contrary 
errors  by  her  office-bearers.* 

The  second  note  or  mark  of  the  church  of  God,  according  to  that 
confession,  is  "The  right  administration  of  the  sacraments  of  Jesus 

*  See  the  Postscript  to  Mr.  "Wilson's  Letter,  concerning  Secession,  &c. 


134  ALEXANDEE  AND  EUFUS. 

Christ,  which  must  be  annexed  unto  the  word  and  promise  of  God,  to 
seal  and  confirm  the  same  in  our  hearts."  And,  "in  order  that  the 
sacraments  may  be  rightly  administered,  we  judge,  that  two  things  are 
requisite  :  the  one  is,  that  they  may  be  administered  by  lawful  minis- 
ters, whom  we  affirm  to  be  only  they  that  are  appointed  to  the  preach- 
ing of  the  word,  into  whose  mouth  God  has  put  some  sermon  of  ex- 
hortation ;  they  being  men  lawfully  chosen  by  some  church  :  the  other, 
that  they  be  administered  in  such  elements,  and  in  such  sort,  as  God 
hath  appointed  :  otherwise^  we  affirm,  that  they  cease  to  be  right  sac- 
raments of  Jesus  Christ." 

The  third  note  or  mark  of  a  true  church,  is,  "Ecclesiastical  discip- 
line uprightly  administered,  as  God's  word  prescribeth ;  whereby 
vice  is  repressed,  and  virtue  nourished." 

It  follows  from  these  marks,  that  we  are  not  to  have  sacramental 
communion  with  a  church,  v/hich  is  habitually,  publicly  and  obstinately 
walking  contrary  to  any  of  them  :  by  consequence,  we  cannot  warrant- 
ably  have  communion  with  a  particular  church  or  her  members  who 
are  habitually,  publicly  and  obstinately  opposing  any  one  article  of 
our  public  scriptural  profession  ;  who  are  displaying  a  banner  against 
some  doctrine  or  command  of  Christ,  which  it  belongs  to  the  character 
and  duty  of  his  true  church  to  maintain  ;  or  who  are  exercising  their 
ecclesiastical  authority  to  the  wounding  and  hurt,  instead  of  the  edifi- 
cation, of  his  body. 

You  say,  that  these  characteristics  are  common  at  this  lioiir  to  all 
the  churches  of  Reformed  Christendom  ;  excepting  such  as  have  lost 
the  faith  of  the  Trinity  or  the  atonement.  I  confess,  that  any  infor- 
mation I  have  attained  on  that  subject,  does  not  lead  me  to  form  so 
flattering  an  opinion  of  the  present  state  of  these  churches.  Above 
seventy  years  since,  a  pious  and  judicious  writer*  showed,  that  the 
national  church  of  Scotland,  as  then  represented  by  her  judicatories, 
had  not  a  just  claim  to  these  notes  of  a  true  church  of  Christ ;  and 
I  cannot  say,  I  have,  as  yet,  learned,  that  there  is  a  real  reforma- 
tion of  that  church,  with  respect  to  those  evils,  which  led  to  that  con- 
clusion. 

Arminian,  and  other  false  doctrine,  is  still  propagated  in  the  Prot- 
estant churches.  This  is  likely  to  be  the  case^  while  the  influence  of 
opinions  in  favor  of  the  catholic  scheme  of  church  communion,  inca- 
pacitates the  churches  for  giving  any  effectual  check  to  the  progress 
of  error,  by  the  faithful  exercise  of  discipline. 

§  41.  I  may  observe,  that  the  marks  of  a  true  church,  as  including 
the  principles  of  the  Reformation,  harmoniously  stated  in  their  con- 
fessions, hold  forth,  not  only  what,  in  a  lax  sense,  may  be  called  a  true 


*  See  Mr.  Wilson's  Defence  of  the  Reformation  Principles  of  the  church  of  Scot- 
land ,  particularly  in  the  Postscript  to  his  Letter  to  a  Member  of  the  Presbytery 
of  Dumfermline. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  135 

church  ;  but  one  which,  as  to  the  general  tenor  of  her  doctrine  and 
administration,  is  sound  and  pure  :  a  church,  which  is  not  only  oppos- 
ed to  assemblies  of  heathen  idolaters,  or  unbelieving  Jews,  or  to  such 
as  have  lost  the  faith  of  the  Trinity  and  the  atonement;  but  to  churches 
which,  as  Turretine  says,*  are  true  churches,  though  they  are  not  to 
be  reckoned  pure. 

The  obstinate  attachment  of  such  corrupt  churches  to  their  wood, 
hay  and  stubble,  may  render  it  necessary  to  withdraw  from  their  sac- 
ramental communion,  and  to  endeavor  to  preserve  the  ordinances  of 
God  pure  and  entire  in  a  separate  society.  Such  a  society,  having 
the  marks  of  a  true  church,  according  to  these  confessions,  is  indeed  a 
true  church,  to  which  we  ought  to  join  ourselves.  Nor,  in  this  case, 
is  our  declining  to  have  communion  with  a  corrupt  Protestant  church, 
which  obstinately  refuses  to  be  reclaimed,  any  more  inconsistent  with 
our  relation  to  the  catholic  church,  than  our  declining  to  have  such 
communion  with  the  church  of  Rome. 

Alex.  The  Belgick  Confession,  i.  e.  the  Confession  of  the  Protes- 
tant Calvinists,  in  the  United  Provinces,  in  1561,  thus  lays  down  their 
faith  respecting  the  church.  We  believe  and  confess  one  catholic  or 
universal  church  ;  which  is  the  true  congregation  of  all  faithful  chris- 
tians. We  believe  that,  since  there  is  no  salvation  out  of  it,  no  per- 
son, of  whatever  rank  or  dignity,  may  withdraw  himself  therefrom,  so 
as  to  live  separately,  contented  with  his  own  custom  only.  But,  on 
the  contrary,  that  all  are  bound  to  join  themselves  to  this  assembly, 
and  carefully  to  preserve  the  unity  of  the  church ;  and  freely  submit 
themselves  to  her  doctrine  and  discipline,  bowing  their  neck  to  the 
yoke  of  Christ. — It  is  the  duty  of  all  believers,  to  disjoin  themselves 
from  those  who  are  without  the  church,  and  to  join  themselves  to  this 
assembly  and  congregation  of  the  faithful,  wheresoever  God  has  settled 
it.  Whoever,  therefore,  forsake  that  true  church,  or  do  not  join 
themselves  to  it,  resist  the  commandment  of  God. 

The  marks,  by  which  the  true  church  is  known,  are  the  pure  preach- 
ing of  the  gospel ;  the  legitimate  administration  of  the  sacraments,  ac- 
cording to  the  command  of  Christ ;  and  ecclesiastical  discipline,  for 
the  coercion  of  vice.  It  is  a  church  which  adjusts  all  things  to  the 
rule  of  God's  word  ;  rejects  whatever  is  contrary  to  it,  and  acknowl- 
edges Jesus  Christ  as  her  only  Head.  By  these  marks,  the  true 
church,  from  which  it  is  not  lawful  for  any  one  to  separate  himself 
may  be  certainly  known,  f 

RuF.  This  is  agreeable  to  what  I  have  observed,  that  a  church,  which 
exhibits  the  marks  of  a  true  church  of  Christ,  though  imperfect,  has 
attained,  through  the  goodness  of  God,  such  a  measure  of  conformity 
to  the  pattern  of  his  word  in  doctrine,  worship  and  government,  that, 

*Institutione  Theologwe.    Loc.    xviii.  Qusest.  12.  sect.  7. 
*  Plea,  &c.,  page  148, 149, 150. 


1*36  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

compared  with  a  corrupt  or  backsliding  church,  and  with  regard  to  her 
ruling  character,  she  may  be  justly  called  a  pure  church ;  and  that,  in 
joining  ourselves  and  adhering  to  the  communion  of  such  a  church, 
even  when  separating  from  a  more  numerous  body,  on  account  of  pre- 
vailing defection,  we  do  not  separate  from  the  catholic  or  universal 
church ;  but  adhere  to  it  more  closely  than  we  would  do,  by  continuing 
in  the  communion,  and  conniving  at  the  evils  of  the  more  numerous 
body. 

Alex.  Rufus,  you  mistake  the  meaning  of  the  Belgick  Confession ; 
for,  according  to  that  Confession,  it  is  the  duty  of  every  one,  who  loves 
the  Lord  Jesus,  to  hold  communion  with  the  catholic  church,  through 
the  medium  of  any  one  of  her  branches,  to  which  we  may  have  access, 
in  any  part  of  the  world.  If  there  be  a  true  church,  that  is  enough 
to  justify  his  participation  of  her  ordinances ;  and,  if  she  be  the  only 
true  church  there,  to  render  such  participation,  his  bounden  duty.  It 
is  true,  the  Confession  does  speak  of  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  in  a 
true  church  being  pure ;  of  the  administration  of  the  sacraments  being 
according  to  the  command  of  Christ ;  of  her  discipline  being  sincere 
and  faithful ;  and  of  every  thing  being  reduced  to  the  rule  of  God's 
word ;  and  of  her  rejection  of  every  thing  contrary  to  it :  but  this  must 
be  understood,  not  so  much  of  the  actual  attainment  of  scriptual  per- 
fection, by  any  churches  whatever,  as  of  their  avowed  standard ;  of  the 
test,  to  which  they  submit  their  pretensions ;  and  of  their  substantial 
character ;  whatever,  in  other  respects,  might  be  their  failings  or  dif- 
ferences. The  Belgick  churches  themselves  had  not  then,  and  have 
not  since,  arrived  at  such  purity  as  their  own  confessions,  according  to 
certain  expressions  separately  taken,  seem  to  require :  and  they  did  not 
intend  to  say,  that  they  had  not  themselves  true  churches,  and  were  un- 
worthy of  communion  with  others,  f 

RuF.  With  regard  to  the  avowed  standard,  or  test  to  which  churches 
submit  their  pretensions ;  an  acknowledgment  of  the  holy  scripture, 
as  the  standard  and  test  of  religious  truths  is,  no  doubt,  necessary  to 
the  character  of  a  true  church  of  Christ.  But  this  cannot  ])e  justly 
considered  a  suflBcient  ground  for  the  denomination  of  a  true  church  of 
Christ,  without  any  consideration  of  what  conformity  to  the  scrip- 
tures she  has  attained,  in  particular  articles  of  doctrine  and  worship : 
otherwise,  even  those  churches  which  have  lost  the  faith  of  the  Trinity 
and  the  atonement,  may  be  allowed  to  be  true  churches. 

You  say,  that  this  description,  in  the  Belgick  Confession,  of  true 
churches  of  Christ,  as  churches  whose  doctrine,  worship  and  discipline 
are  adjusted  to  the  rule  of  God's  word,  is  to  be  understood  as  their  sub- 
stantial character ;  that  is,  as  applicable  to  churches  so  corrupt,  that 
they  have  nothing  more  in  respect  of  their  public  profession  to  entitle 
them  to  the  character  of  churches  of  Christ,  than  their  holding  such 

*  Plea,  &c.  pages  152, 154. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  137 

doctrines  as  are  absolutely  necessary  to  be  known  and  believed,  in  order 
to  salvation,  or  what  you  call  the  essentials.  But,  though  I  own  that 
such  churches  may  be  called,  in  a  large  sense,  true  churches ;  I  am  far 
from  thinking,  that  it  is  the  design  of  the  Belgick  Confession,  in  the 
passage  under  consideration,  to  describe  such  churches.  For,  in  the 
first  place,  a  church,  havmg  what  you  call  the  essentials,  may  be,  as  to 
the  habitual  and  prevailing  state  of  religion  in  it,  the  reverse  of  that 
which  is  described  in  the  words  of  the  Confession  in  this  place :  her  doc- 
trine may  be  corrupted  by  a  mixture  of  error ;  her  worship,  by  what  is 
taken  away  from,  or  added  to  the  Divine  institutions ;  and  her  govern- 
ment may  be  tyrannical ;  and  she  may  be  continuing  obstinate  in  these 
evils,  after  all  ordinary  means  have  been  used  to  reclaim  her.  And 
her  persisting  in  these  evils  may  be  peculiarly  heinous  and  aggravated, 
as  being  an  apostacy  from  great  purity  in  doctrine,  worship  and  gov- 
ernment, formerly  attained.  Now,  it  is  unwarrantable,  to  suppose, 
that  this  passage  of  the  Belgick  Confession,  giving  particular  characters 
of  that  church  of  Christ  to  which  we  ought  to  join  ourselves,  should 
mean,  that  we  are  bound  to  join  ourselves  to  a  church  of  a  contrary 
description. 

The  unreasonableness  of  this  construction  is  more  evident  from  what 
is  added,  in  the  same  article  of  that  confessson,  concerning  the  false 
church,  from  which  we  are  to  depart ;  "a  church  that  sets  the  authori- 
ty of  its  own  constitutions  above  that  of  God's  word  ;  that  refuses  to 
submit  to  the  yoke  of  Christ :  that  does  not  administer  the  sacraments 
according  to  Christ's  appointment."  It  is  true,  that  by  the  false 
church  here,  the  compilers  of  the  confession  immediately  intended  the 
church  of  Rome,  which  was  the  principal  erroneous  church,  that  our 
Reformers  had  to  contend  against.  But  they  certainly  meant,  that  the 
same  evils  in  whatever  church  they  might  be  found,  would  make  her 
character  so  far  as  they  prevailed,  in  her,  differ  from  that  of  the  true 
church  of  Christ.  To  the  same  purpose  are  the  following  words  of  the 
Confession  of  the  cities  of  Argentor,  Constance,  Memmingen,  and  Lin- 
dau.  "They  cannot  bear  the  character  of  the  church  of  Christ  who 
teach  what  is  contrary  to  the  commands  of  Christ.  Though  they  may 
be  within  the  church ;  yet,  being  entangled  in  error,  the  sound  of  the 
Shepherd's  voice  is  not  heard  in  them :  they  cannot  represent  the 
church,  the  spouse  of  Christ.  "* 

In  the  second  place,  though  the  Belgiclj^  Confession,  in  this  passage, 
does  not  direct  us  to  seek  a  perfect  church  on  earth ;  yet  it  certainly 
directs  us  to  seek  a  pure  or  faithful  church,  a  church  which  is  endeav- 
oring to  hold  fast  all  the  reformation  already  attained :  and  which 
does  not  refuse  to  be  reformed  more  and  more.  In  this  light  they  cer- 
tainly considered  all  their  own  churches;  and  the  other  reformed 
churches  with  which  they  had  communion.     They  considered  them  as 

Cap.  15.  de  Ecclesia. 

/ 


138  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

in  a  state  of  progressive  reformation,  not  in  a  state  of  progressive  de- 
fection. There  is  nothing  in  the  words  of  this  Confession  implying 
that  it  is  our  duty  to  have  sacramental  communion  with  a  church  which 
is  in  a  state  of  progressive  defection ;  or  that  our  declining  sacramen- 
tal communion  with  such  a  corrupt  church  and  our  adhering  to  a 
church  bearing  testimony  against  such  defection,  is  a  separation  from 
the  catholic  or  universal  church,  out  of  which  there  is  no  salvation. 

I  add  only  one  remark,  which  is,  that  what  this  Confession  says  of 
the  true  church,  must  here  be  understood  of  her  actual  attainment ; 
for  we  cannot  judge,  whether  a  church  be  true  or  false,  pure  or  corrupt, 
but  by  what  she  has  actually  attained.  On  the  whole,  it  is  evident, 
that  the  principles  on  which  the  Protestant  churches  left  the  church  of 
Rome,  and  the  marks  of  a  true  church  of  Christ  stated  in  their  Confes- 
sions, are  altogether  inconsistent  with  the  scheme  of  catholic  commun- 
ion now  pleaded  for. 

§  42.  The  second  reason,  I  offer,  for  my  persuasion,  that  the 
scheme  of  catholic  communion  is  contrary  to  the  principles  of  the 
Reformed  churches,  arises  from  the  design  of  their  Confessions  and  from 
the  harmony  of  their  doctrines.  It  was  the  design  of  these  Confes- 
sions, not  only,  as  has  been  just  now  observed,  to  show,  that  these 
churches  bear  the  marks  or  characters  of  true  churches  of  Jesus  Christ, 
but  to  serve  as  bonds  of  union  among  their  members,  and  as  tests  of 
soundness  in  the  faith,  and  means  of  keeping  the  erroneous  out  of  their 
communion. 

"It  was  the  design  of  these  Confessions,"  says  Turretine,  "that 
they  might  be  forms  of  agreement  and  serve  as  a  bond  of  salutary 
union,  in  which  all  the  pious  might  coalesce  into  one  body,  and  that 
they  might  be  means  of  preventing  animosities,  dangerous  dissen- 
sions and  schisms  tending  to  deprive  the  church  both  of  truth  and  uni- 
ty."* 

He  adds,  "That  they  serve  to  guard  against  the  introduction  of  dan- 
gerous novelties,  which  corrupt  the  simplicity  of  the  faith  and  disturb 
the  peace  of  the  church,  "f  The  obligation,  which  these  Confessions 
were  intended  to  have  on  church  members,  is  defined  in  the  following 
words  of  Spanheim  :  "These  Confessions,"  says  he,  "oblige  all,  in  res- 
pect of  the  conscience,  no  otherwise  than  hypothetically,  on  account  of 
the  agreement  of  their  doctrine  with  the  holy  Scriptures,  on  account  of 
the  manifestation  of  the  truth  in  them  to  every  conscience,  2  Corinth, 
iv.  2.  Not  as  they  are  the  words  of  men,  but  as  they  are  the  words  of 
God,  1  Thess.  ii.  13.     But  all  the  members  of  the  same  society  are  fel- 

*Ut  essent  formuloe  consensus,  et  unionis  salutaris  vinculum,  quo  pii  omnes  in ,. 
unum  corpus  coagmentarentur,  et  sic  omnes  distractiones,  periculosi  dissensus  et 
schismata,  quibus  Veritas  et  unitas  Ecclesi^e  laceratur,  prsecaverentur.    De  Potes- 
tate  Eccl.  Quosst:  30.  Sect.  8, 

t  Ad  prcecavendas  periculosas  novitates,  quae  fidei  simplicitatem  inficere  peter-  f 
ant,  et  pacem  Ecclesise  turbare.    Ibid.  Sect.  13. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  139 

low  laborers  in  the  same  ministry  and  in  the  same  church,  in  the  Eng- 
lish church,  for  example,  in  the  Dutch,  in  the  Helvetian,  &c.,  are  under 
an  absolute  obligation  to  the  Confessions  or  forms  of  doctrine  adopted 
by  their  respective  societies  or  churches,  as  external  or  ecclesiastical 
bodies  ;  as  the  standards  of  what  they  have  agreed  to  in  the  matters 
of  faith,  as  the  foundations  of  their  external  church  union,  as  remedies 
against  schisms  :  as  justly  deduced,  according  to  the  public  judgment 
of  the  church,  from  the  holy  scriptures,  the  only  principle  and  supreme 
standard  of  the  doctrines  of  religion ;  not,  however,  precluding  any 
person  from  the  private  examination  or  trial  of  these  Confessions  by 
the  touch-stone  of  the  Divine  word,  in  order  to  farther  confirmation  in 
the  faith."* 

According  to  this  design,  every  article  of  a  scriptural  Confession, 
which  a  particular  church,  has  adopted,  essential  or  non-essential,  be- 
longs to  the  bond  of  union  among  her  members,  and  to  the  test  of 
soundness  in  the  faith.  But  if  a  particular  church,  or  her  members, 
have  sacramental  communion  with  the  public  and  obstinate  opposers  of 
any  article  of  such  a  Confession  ;  that  church  and  her  members,  in  doing 
so,  declare  that  such  an  article  is  no  more  any  bond  of  their  union. 
For  it  cannot  be  shown,  that  the  members  of  any  particular  church  may 
warrantably  have  an  article  of  a  Confession  of  Faith,  as  a  bond  of  union 
among  themselves,  which  ought  not  to  be  so  between  them  and  all 
christians  with  whom  they  may  warrantably  communicate.  Nor  can 
any  article  of  a  Confession  adopted  by  any  particular  church ;  while 
that  church  has  sacramental  communion  with  the  open  and  obstinate 
opposers  of  it,  serve  in  her,  for  a  test  of  soundness  in  the  faith  :  for,  in 
that  case,  none  can  be  kept  from  partaking  of  sealing  ordinances,  nor 
consistently  subjected  to  any  censure,  for  rejecting  it,  or  holding  doc- 
trine contrary  to  it. 

Our  Reformers,  no  doubt,  allowed  some  article  of  their  Confessions 
to  be  more  important  and  to  lie  nearer  the  foundation  of  our  holy  relig- 
ion, than  others ;  but  that  it  consisted  with  their  design,  in  framing 
and  publishing  their  Confessions  to  the  world,  that  a  great  part  of  them 
should  not  be  considered,  as  belonging  to  the  necessary  bond  of  their 
ecclesiastical  union,  or  to  the  test  of  soundness  in  the  faith,  in  due 
subordination  to  the  holy  scriptures,  I  have  not,  as  yet,  seen  any 
gi'ound  to  believe. 

§  43.  Conformable  to  this  design  is  the  harmony  of  these  Confessions. 

*  Formnloe  publicse  sane  omnes  obligant  etiam  in  foro  interho  sed  non  aliter 
quani  ex  lij^pothesi  ab  cloctrinfB  homosephian  cum  scripturis  sacris  ob  anerosin  in 
iis  ventatis  p^'os  pasan  simeidesin,  2  Corinth,  iv.  2,  uec  ut  sunt  verbum  hominum, 
sed  ut  sunt  verbum  Dei,  1  Tlies.  ii.  13.  Ast  vero  membra  omnia  ejusdem  societatis 
et  suiiergous^  in  eodem  ministerio,  eademque  ecclesia,  puta,  AnglicaDa,_Batava, 
Helvetica,  &c.  obligant  formulse  doctrinse  absolute,  in  foro  esterno,  seu  civili  seu 
ecclesiastico ;  nempe,  ut  normae  consensus,  ut  fundamentum  unionis,  ut  remedia 
scbismatum,  ut  qute  censentur  judicio  publico  deductaB  ex  principio  uuico  scrip- 
turse:  non  excluso  tamen  cujusque  examine,  et  anakrisei  privata  et  sungknsei  ad 
lapidem  Lydiam  verbi  Divini. 


140  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

It  is  delightful  to  observe  their  agreement  with  the  holy  scriptures,  and 
with  one  another.  One  cannot  fail  to  have  this  satisfaction  in  com- 
paring these  Confessions  with  one  another,  on  the  following  subjects ; 
on  the  holy  scriptures  ;  on  human  tradition ;  on  the  Holy  Trinity ;  on 
the  Providence  of  God ;  on  the  person  of  Christ  and  his  relation  to 
the  church  as  her  only  Head ;  on  the  justification  of  a  sinner  before 
God ;  on  the  fiducial  nature  of  faith  ;  on  repentance  and  good  works  ; 
on  predestination  and  free  will ;  on  the  sacraments  ;  on  the  church  and 
her  ministers  ;  on  the  resurrection  and  eternal  life. 

Hence  it  appears,  that  the  sacramental  communion,  which  the  Re- 
formed churches  had  at  first  with  one  another  on  the  ground  of  their 
Confessions,  could  be  no  example  of  the  catholic  communion  now 
pleaded  for ;  that  is,  it  was  no  example  of  any  of  them  having  such 
communion  with  avowed  and  obstinate  opposers  of  any  scriptural  doc- 
trine, essential  or  non-essential,  of  their  public  profession. 

Alex.  According  to  these  Confessions,  differences  as  to  rites,  cere- 
monies, modifications  of  external  order,  ought  not  to  hinder  churches, 
which  hold  the  main  doctrines  of  faith,  from  having  sacramental  com- 
munion with  one  another.  To  this  purpose,  the  Augsburgh  Confession ; 
"  The  unity  of  the  catholic  church,  consists  in  the  harmony  of  doctrine 
and  faith ;  not  in  human  traditions,  whereof  there  has  always  been  in 
the  churches  great  diversity..'* 

The  Bohemian  Confession :  ''The  face  and  form  of  our  church, 
which  are  now  peculiar,  are  retained  for  no  other  reason,  than  greater 
convenience  in  teaching  the  word,  administering  the  sacraments,  and 
for  the  exercise  of  discipline.  A  variety  of  ceremonies,  if  they  be  not 
repugnant  to  the  word  of  God,  neither  does  harm  to  the  word  of  God, 
nor  separates  from  the  church,  "f 

The  Helvetian:  "The  truth  and  unity  of  the  church,  consists  not  in 
ceremonies  and  external  rites  ;  but  rather  in  the  truth  and  unity  of  the 
catholic  faith.  The  catholic  faith  has  not  been  delivered  to  us  in  hu- 
man laws,  but  in  the  Divine  scriptures.  The  churches  have  always 
used  their  liberty  in  such  rites,  as  being  indifferent.  And  we  do  the 
same  at  this  day.  "J 

The  subscribers  to  the  Helvetian  Confession,  thus  express  them- 
selves in  their  preface :  "Impartial  readers  will  clearly  perceive,  that 
we  have  no  communion  with  any  sects  or  heretics,  whicli,  for  this  very 
end,  we  mention  and  repeat  in  almost  every  chapter.  They  will  there- 
fore infer  also,  that  we  do  not,  by  any  nefarious  schism,  separate  and 
rend  ourselves  from  the  holy  church  of  Christ  in  Germany,  France, 
England,  and  other  christian  nations ;  but,  that  we  thoroughly  agree 
with  each  and  all  of  them,  in  this  Confession  of  Christ's  truths,  and 

*  Plea,  &c.,  pages  154, 155.  fPlea,  &c.,  pages  155, 156. 

t  lb.  pages  159, 160. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  141 

embrace  them  in  unfeigned  love.  And  although  there  be  discovered,  in 
different  churches,  a  certain  variety  of  expression  and  form  of  explain- 
ing doctrine  ;  as  also,  of  rites  or  ceremonies  according  to  the  received 
usage,  convenience  and  edification  of  particular  churches  ;  yet  they 
will  notice  that  these  things  never  furnished,  in  any  period  of  the 
church,  ground  of  dissensions  and  schisms.  The  churches  of  Christ,  as 
ecclesiastical  history  shows,  have  always  used  their  liberty  in  this  mat- 
ter. Pious  antiquity  accounted  mutual  agreement  in  the  principal  doc- 
trine of  faith,  and  in  brotherly  love  sufficient."*  The  rest  of  the  pre- 
face is  in  the  same  strain. 

This  Confession,  was  officially  addressed  in  the  preface  to  christians 
and  christian  churches,  throughout  Europe ;  and  was  approved  by  the 
churches  of  England,  Scotland,  France,  the  United  Provinces,  and  by 
many  of  Poland,  Hungary  and  Germany.  Now,  in  these  churches, 
there  was  a  great  variety  of  religious  observances,  as  well  as  differ- 
ences of  a  higher  order.  Some  of  them,  as  the  Dutch  and  Germans, 
were  Calvinists  m  doctrine,  and  Presbyterians  in  government :  others, 
as  the  English,  were  Episcopal ;  and  others  again,  as  the  German,  a 
sort  of  medium  between  Episcopacy  and  Presbytery. 

To  the  same  purpose,  are  the  following  words  of  the  Saxon  Confes- 
sion drawn  up  in  the  year  1551.  "In  the  mean  time,  there  have  been, 
and  are,  and  will  be,  in  the  church  of  God,  men  holding  the  founda- 
tion, who  have  had,  and  will  have,  some  more,  and  some  less,  light : 
and,  sometimes,  saints  too,  build  stubble  upon  the  foundation ;  since, 
especially  in  the  wretchedness  of  the  present  times,  many  who  have  the 
beginnings  of  faith,  have  not  the  privilege  of  being  instructed,  and  of 
conferring  with  those  who  are  more  skilful.  These,  however,  are  in 
the  number  of  those,  whom,  it  is  the  will  of  God,  we  should  spare ; 
who  groan  and  grieve,  because  errors  are  established.  A  judgment, 
therefore,  must  and  may  be  formed,  what  and  where  is  the  true  church, 
by  the  voice  of  true  doctrine,  and  the  legitimate  use  of  the  sacra- 
ments ;  and  what  the  voice  of  true  doctrine  is,  the  very  wi'itings  of 
the  apostles  and  prophets,  and  the  creeds,  sufficiently  declare.  In 
these,  there  is  no  ambiguous  doctrine,  concerning  the  foundation  ;  that 
is,  concerning  the  articles  of  frith,  the  essence  and  will  of  God,  the 
Son  our  Redeemer,  the  law,  the  promises,  the  use  of  the  sacraments, 
the  ministry,  "f 

How  severely  does  the  Helvetian  Confession  condemn  separation 
from  the  true  church  of  Christ !  "We  lay  so  great  stress,"  says  that 
Confession,  "upon  communion  with  the  true  church  of  Christ,  as  to 
deny  that  they  can  live  before  God,  who  do  not  communicate  with  the 
true  church  of  God,  but  separate  themselves  therefrom.  "J 

*  Plea,  &c.  pages  160, 161.  t  lb.  pages  157,  158. 

X  lb.  page  158. 


142  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

In  short,  these  extracts  from  the  Confessions  of  the  Reformed 
churches,  show,  that  they  contended,  Ist,  for  liberty  in  rites  and  cere- 
monies of  worship  ;  2ndly,  for  mntnal  forbearance  in  the  article  of 
church  government ;  odlv,  for  latitude  in  the  forms  of  doctrinal  ex- 
pression, provided  the  substance  of  evangehcal  truth  be  preserved  ;  so 
as  that  diversity  in  any  or  all  these  things,  shall  not  break  up  the  peace 
of  the  churches,  nor  hinder  sacramental  communion ;  and  4thly,  for 
concord,  communion  and  love  between  them,  upon  the  basis  of  their 
unity  in  that  faith  and  doctrine,  to  which  they  all  look  for  their  com- 
mon salvation.* 

RrF.  The  expressions  in  these  Confessions,  respecting  the  evil  of 
separating  from  the  true  church  of  G-od.  taken  abstractedly,  are  not  to 
be  understood  of  any  particular  visible  church,  but  of  the  catholic 
church.  This  is  the  church,  out  of  the  communion  of  which  we  can- 
not live  before  God.  This  is  what  the  Belgick  Confession  calls,  the 
true  congregation  or  assembly  of  all  faithful  christians,  who  expect 
their  whole  salvation  from  Jesus  Christ  alone  ;  as  they  are  washed  in  his 
blood,  and  sanctified  and  sealed  by  his  Spirit.  It  is  not  like  a  partic- 
ular church,  as  that  Confession  observes,  Iniiited  to  one  particular  place, 
but  is  dispersed  through  the  whole  world.  The  Papists  held  the  par- 
ticular church  of  Rome,  to  be  the  catholic  or  universal  church,  Protes- 
tants, on  the  contrary,  always  taught  that  no  society  of  professing  chris- 
tians, who  had  the  marks,  formerly  mentioned,  of  a  true  church  of 
Christ,  was  separated  from  the  catholic  church. 

With  respect  to  rites  and  ceremonies,  there  is  much  harmony  in 
their  Confessions. 

In  the  Belgick  Confession,  we  have  these  words  :  "  Though  it  be 
good  and  usefnl  for  the  church  rulers  to  agree  on,  and  settle,  some  cer- 
tain order  for  the  conservation  of  the  body  of  the  church ;  yet,  they 
ought  to  guard,  with  the  utmost  care,  against  swerving  from  those 
things  which  Christ  our  Master  has  instituted.  Wherefore,  we  reject 
all  human  inventions,  and  all  laws,  which  may  be  introduced  by  any  to 
bind  the  conscience  with  regard  to  the  worship  of  God.''f 

The  same  doctrine  is  taught  more  largely  in  some  of  the  other  Con- 
fessions ;  particularly,  in  the  Saxon, which  was  drawn  in  1551.  ''Ways 
of  worship,"-  says  that  Confession,  "devised  by  men,  without  the  com- 
mand of  God,  never  were  nor  are  the  worship  of  God.  God  is  far 
from  approving  the  presumption,  so  common  among  men,  of  inventing 
methods  of  worship,  that  is,  works  which  have  it  for  their  immediate 

*  Plea,  (fcc  page  162. 

+  Credimus,  quamvis  utile  et  bonum  sit,  Gubematores  Ecclesiae  ordinem  ali- 
quam  certum  inter  se,  ad  conEervationem  corporis  Ecclesiae  instituere  et  stabilere; 
debere  tameu  eos  studiose  cavere  ne  ab  iis  deflectant,  quae  Christus  unicus  Magis- 
ter  noster  constituit.  Quapropter  rejicimus  omnia  inventa" humana.  omnesque 
leges  pro  cultu  Dei  a  quo  cunque  introduci  possunt,  ut  iisdem  conscientae  uUo 
omnino  mode  deyLnciantur.    Belgick  Confession,  art.  xxxii. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  143 

end,  that  God,  through  them,  may  receive  religious  worship.  Hence, 
he  exclaims.  In  vain  do  they  worship  me  according  to  the  com- 
mandments of  men.  This  presumption  is  every  where  reproved  in 
the  prophets  and  in  Paul.  But  the  acts  of  true  religious  worship  are 
acts  or  services  which  God  hath  commanded.  Thus,  God  still  directs 
us  to  his  commands  as  our  warrant  in  this  matter :  saying,  as  in  Ezek. 
XX,  "Do  not  walk  in  the  statutes  of  your  fathers  ;  but  walk  in  my  stat- 
utes."    And  in  Psal.  cxix,  "Thy  word  is  a  lamp  to  my  feet."* 

"The  church  of  Christ,"  says  the  Confession  of  the  church  of  Basil, 
uses  all  her  endeavors  to  preserve  the  bonds  of  peace  and  love  in  unity ; 
and  therefore  she  has  nothing  to  do  with  sects  and  rules  of  the  Popish 
orders  about  the  distinction  of  days,  meats,  vestments  and  ceremo- 
nies, "f 

In  the  Confession  presented  to  the  emperor  Charles  the  Fifth,  by  the , 
embassadors  of  the  cities  of  Argentor,  Memmingen,  Constance  and 
Lindau,  in  1530,  we  have  the  following  passages  :  "  The  human  tra- 
ditions, which  the  churches  consider  as  condemned  in  scripture,  are 
those  only  which  they  find  inconsistent  with  the  law  of  God  ;  such  as 
those  binding  men's  conscience  to  the  observation  of  certain  meat,  drink, 
or  times  ;  or  forbidding  to  many.  But  those  which  are  consonant  to 
scripture  and  good  morals,  and  are  for  the  benefit  of  men,  and  which, 
though  they  are  not  expressed  in  so  many  words  in  scripture,  yet  flow 
from  the  laio  of  love  which  enjoins  all  things  to  be  done  decently,  may 
be  reckoned  rather  Divine  than  human.  Such  are  these  traditions  of 
Paul :  that  the  women  should  not  pray  in  the  church  with  their  heads 
uncovered ;  nor  the  men  with  their  heads  covered  ;  that  when  they 
were  going  to  communicate,  they  should  wait  for  one  another ;  that  no 
one  should  speak  in  an  unknown  tongue  in  the  public  assemblies  with- 
out an  interpreter ;  that  the  prophets  should  speak  in  order  without 
interrupting  one  another.  'J 

"With  regard  to  ecclesiastical  rites,"  says  the  Augsburgh  Confes- 
sion, ^vritten  by  Melancthon,  in  1530,  "which  are  instituted  by  hu- 
man authority,  our  churches  teach,  that  such  of  them  are  to  be  ob- 
served, as  may  be  observed  without  sin ;  such  as  are  conducive  to 
tranquility  and  good  order  in  the  church ;  as  some  holy  days,  some 

*  At  ethelothreskeiai  excagitatse  ab  hominibus  sine  mandato  Dei,  nee  fueniDt, 
nee  sunt  cultus  Dei.  Nequaquam  probatDcus  audaciam  homininum,  qui  tameu 
semper  usitate  fuit,  fingendi  cultus,  id  est  opera  quorum  finis  immediatus  sit,  ut 
Deus  per  ea  bonore  adficiatur.  Ideo  exclamat.  &c.  Sed  veri  cultus  sunt  opera  a 
Deo  mandata,  &c.  Conf.  Saxonica  De  ritibus  in  ecclesia  institutis. 

+  Cbristi  Ecclesia  cum  sectis  et  ordinum  regulis,  ad  discrimen'dierum,  ciborum, 
vestium  et  ceremoniarum  compositis,  nullo  modo  communicat.  Confess.  Basil- 
gensi.  art.  v. 

X  Inter  traditiones  quae  in  Scripturis  damnantur,  nullas  numerant,  nisi  quoe  cum 
lege  Dei  pugnant,  quales  sunt  quae  de  cibo,  &c.    Confess.  Argentinensi,  cap.  14. 


144  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

pious  songs.  These,  however,  are  to  be  considered  as  things  in- 
different, which  out  of  the  case  of  scandal  or  offence,  may  be  omit- 
ted."* 

This  Confession  says  farther  concerning  such  observances  :  ''  They 
do  not  belong  to  that  religious  worship  which  is  necessary.  Christ  for- 
bids human  ceremonies  to  be  considered  as  worship.  He  does  not 
forbid  the  retaining  of  such  traditions  for  a  political  end  ;  that  is,  for 
the  sake  of  good  order  :  but  he  denies  that  they  are  worship,  when  he 
says.  In  vain  do  they  worship  me.  "f 

"We  confess,"  says  the  Wirtemberg  Confession,  which  was  drawn 
up  in  1552,  "that  the  bishops,  with  the  consent  of  their  church,  may 
appoint  orders  of  holy  days,  and  of  lectures  or  sermons  for  edifica- 
tion, and  for  the  teaching  of  the  true  faith  in  Christ.  But  it  is  not 
lawful  to  restore  the  ancient  rites  of  the  law,  or  to  devise  new  ones 
to  signify  some  truth  already  set  forth  in  the  gospel ;  such  as  the 
lighting  of  wax  candles  in  daylight  to  signify  the  light  of  the  gospel ; 
or  using  crosses  on  banners  to  signify  the  victory  of  Christ  by  the 
cross.  "J 

From  these  quotations  it  appears,  that  the  confessions  of  the  Re- 
formed churches  harmoniously  teach  that  no  church  ought  to  admit  as 
parts  of  religious  worship  any  rites  or  ceremonies  not  appointed  in  the 
word  of  God,  or  to  impose  religious  significations  on  them. 

The  statement  of  the  Belgick  and  Saxon  Confessions  is  perfectly 
adjusted  to  this  principle.  As  to  what  some  of  these  confessions  say 
about  holy  days  and  pious  songs  introduced  by  men  into  the  public 
worship  of  the  church,  though  the  retaining  of  them  be  a  real  devia- 
tion from  this  principle,  it  is  no  designed  contradiction  of  it ;  while 
these  usages  are  not  stated  as  necessary  parts  of  religious  worship, 
and  while  there  is  no  opposition  intended  to  the  other  confessions. 
So  that  we  find  nothing  in  the  confessions  of  the  Reformed  churches, 
concerning  rites  and  ceremonies,  in  favor  of  the  catholic  communion 
now  contended  for :  that  is,  in  favor  of  the  practice  of  sacrmental 
communion  with  avowed  and  obstinate  opposers  of  any  article,  essen- 
tial or  non-essential,  of  our  public  scriptural  profession. 

There  is  no  less  harmony  in  the  doctrine  of  these  confessions  with 
regard  to  church  government.  They  never  represent  a  bishop  as  hav- 
ing greater  or  any  other  power  than  that  of  an  ordinary  pastor  or 
minister  of  the  church. 

*  De  ritibus  ecclesiasticis  qui  sunt  humauo  auctoritate  instituti,  docent,  tSp. 
Confess.  Aug.  art.  15. 

+  Tales  observationes  sunt  res  adiaphorae,  quae  extra  scandali  casum  omitti  pos- 
sunt :  non  sunt  necessarii  cultis.  Christus  vetat  liumanas  eaeremonas  habere  pro 
cultibus.  Non  enim  prohibet  condere  traditiones  ad  flnem  politicum,  hoc  est, 
propter  bonum  ordinem,  sed  cultus  esse  negat,  cum  ait,  Frustra  colimt  me.  Con- 
fess. Aug.  Di  Discrimine  Ciborum  et  similibus  Traditionibus  Pontificiis. 

X  Fatemur  hoc  quod  Episcopus  liceat  cum  ecclesiae  suae  consensu  ordinationes, 
&c.    Confess.  Wirtemberg.  De  cseremoniis  ecclesiasticis. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  145 

The  Augsburgh  Confession  says,  "  It  is  our  judgment,  that  the 
power  of  the  keys,  or  that  of  the  bishop  according  to  the  gospel,  is 
the  authority  or  command  of  God  to  preach  the  gospel,  to  remit  or 
retain  sins,  and  to  administer  the  sacraments :  for  Christ  sends  the 
apostles  with  this  charge  ',  '  As  my  Father  hath  sent  me,  so  I  send  you. 
Receive  ye  the  Holy  Spirit.  Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are 
remitted  unto  them ;  and  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained. 
Go,  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature'.  This  authority  is  exer- 
cised in  teaching  or  preaching  the  gospel,  and  in  dispensing  the  sac- 
raments. According  to  the  gospel,  or  as  they  speak,  de  jure  divino, 
no  jurisdiction  belongs  to  bishops,  that  is,  to  them  to  whom  the  min- 
istry of  the  word  and  sacraments  is  committed,  but  that  of  remitting 
sins;  and  also,  that  of  discerning  the  true  doctrine,  and  of  re- 
jecting such  doctrine  as  is  different  from  that  of  the  gospel,  and  of 
excluding  persons,  whose  impiety  is  known,  from  the  communion  of 
the  church."* 

The  truth  is  thus  expressed  in  the  Helvetian  Confession  :  '-The 
authority,  or  office  given  to  all  the  ministers  in  the  church,  is  one  and 
equal.  It  is  certain,  that,  in  the  beginning,  the  bishops  and  presby- 
ters governed  the  church  by  common  consent  and  labor.  No  one 
preferred  himself  to  another ;  none  usurped  greater  authority  or  power 
over  his  fellow  bishops  ;  for  they  remembered  the  words  of  the  Lord, 
"He  who  will  be  chief  among  you,  let  him  be  your  servant."  Jerome 
sayS;  That  bishops  were  above  presbyters  rather  by  custom,  than  by 
any  real  Divine  appointment.  Such  was  his  judgment.  None,  there- 
fore, can  justly  prohibit  us  from  returning  to  the  Divine  appointment, 
and  from  receiving  it  as  preferable  to  a  human  custom,  "f 

The  Belgick  Confession  is  abundantly  explicit  on  this  head  :  "We 
believe,"  says  that  form  of  sound  words,  "that  the  church  ought  to 
be  governed  by  that  scriptural  polity,  which  God  hath  taught  us  in 
his  word ;  that  is,  that  there  should  be  ministers  or  pastors  in  it  to 
preach  the  word  of  God,  and  to  administer  the  sacraments  ;  and  that 
there  should  be  seniors  or  elders  and  deacons  ;  who,  with  the  pastors , 
may  constitute  what  may  be  called  the  senate  of  the  church.  We  be- 
lieve, that  the  ministers,  elders,  and  deacons  ought  to  be  chosen  t:o 
their  several  functions  by  the  legitimate  election  of  the  church,  with 
calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord,  and  in  that  order  which  is  taught  in 

*Nostri  sentiunt,  potestatem  clavium  sen  potestatein  Episcoporum  juxtaEvan- 
gelium  potestatem  esse,  seu  mandatum  Dei,  praedicaudi  Evangelii,  remittendi  et 
retineudi  peccata,  etadmiuistrandusacramenta.  Nam  cum  hoc  mandate  Christtis 
mittit  apostoles,  Joannis  xx.  21,  22,  23.  Marci  xvi.  to.  Hsec  potestas  tantum  ex- 
ercetur  docendo  seu  prsedicando  Evangelium,  et  porrigendo  sacramenta,  Augus- 
tana  Confessione  de  Potestate  Ecclesiastica. 

t  Data  est  omnibus  in  Ecclesia  ministris  una  et  aequalis  potestas,  vive  functio. 
Certe  ab  initio  Episcopi  et  Presbyteri  ecclesiam  communi  opera  gubernaverint. 
NuUus  alteri  se  prsetulit,  &c.  Helvet.  Conf.  Chap,  18.  De  ministris  Ecclesise  ipsor- 
umque  institutione  et  officio. 
10 


146  ALEXANDER  AND   RUFUS. 

the  word  of  God.  As  to  the  ministers  of  the  Divine  word,  they  have 
the  same  power  and  authority,  as  being  all  alike  ministers  of  Christ, 
the  only  universal  Bishop  and  Head  of  the  church."* 

To  the  same  purpose  are  the  words  of  the  Gallic  Confession  pre- 
sented to  Charles  IX.  King  of  France,  in  1566.  "We  believe,  that 
the  true  church  ought  to  be  governed  with  that  polity  or  discipline 
which  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ordained,  viz.,  that  there  should  be  in  it 
pastors,  elders,  and  deacons.  We  believe,  that  all  true  pastors,  wher- 
ever they  are  placed,  have  the  same  and  equal  authority  under  Jesus 
Christy  the  supreme  and  only  universal  Bishop. "f 

Thus,  there  appears  to  be  so  much  harmony  in  the  confessions  of 
the  Reformed  churches  with  regard  to  government,  that  they  might 
have  sacramental  communion  with  one  another  upon  the  ground  of 
these  Confessions,  without  admitting  to  that  communion  any  avowed 
and  obstinate  opposers  of  their  scriptural  profession  on  this  head. 

§  44.  Alex.  Is  not  the  article  of  the  Augsburgh  Confession  in  rela- 
tion to  the  presence  of  our  Saviour's  body  and  blood  in  or  with  the 
sacramental  bread  and  wine,  an  exception  to  the  harmony  of  these 
Confessions  ? 

KuF.  I  shall  recite  to  you  the  account  given  of  this  article  by  Bern- 
hardinus  de  Moor  in  his  commentary  on  Mark's  Compend.  This  Con- 
fession, says  he,  was  presented  to  the  Emperor  Charles  Y .  in  a  diet  of 
the  Empire  of  Augsburgh  in  1530.  It  was  drawn  up  by  Melanch- 
thon,  who  was  remarkable  for  the  mildness  of  his  temper,  in  a  style, 
discovering  great,  if  not  too  much,  anxiety  to  avoid  such  terms  as 
would  be  offensive  to  the  Papists,  or  might  tend  to  prejudice  the 
Emperor  against  the  Protestants,  to  the  endangering  of  their  peace 
and  liberty.  This  appeared  particularly  in  the  terms  in  which  the 
tenth  article,  concerning  the  Lord's  supper,  was  expressed,  in  the  copy 
delivered  to  the  Emperor.  "  In  the  Lord's  supper  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  are  present  under  the  species  or  forms  of  bread  and  wine. "J 
As  these  words  approached  too  near  the  terms  in  which  the  Papists 
used  to  express  their  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  they  were  thus^al- 
tered  in  the  edition  printed  in  1531 :  "  They  teach  concerning  the 
Lord's  supper,  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  truly  present 
therein,  and  are  distributed  to  the  partakers  ;  and  they  disapprove  of 
such  as  teach  otherwise.  "||  But  in  revising,  correcting,  and  enlarging 
this  Confession  in  the  year  1538,  Melanchthon  expressed  the  same 
article  in  this  manner  :  "  Concerning  the  Lord's  supper  they  teach, 
that,  with  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  Lord's  supper,  are  truly  exhibit- 

*  Art.  30,  31.  +  Art.  29,  30. 

:}:Corpii8  et  sanguinem  Christi  sub  specie  panis  et  vini  vera  adesse  in  coena  Domini. 

I  De  coena  Domini  docent,  quod  corpus  et  sanguis  Christi  vera  adsint,  et  distri- 
buantur  vescentibus  in  coena  Domini ;  et  improbant  secus  docentes. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  147 

ed  to  the  partakers  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ."*  Here  were  two 
variations  from  the  first  edition.  In  the  second  edition,  Christ's  body 
is  said  to  be  truly  present,  and  to  be  distributed  in  the  Lord's  supper : 
in  the  last,  it  is  only  said  to  be  exhibited.  The  disapprobation  in  the 
former  edition,  of  those  that  teach  otherwise,  is  left  out  in  the  latter. 
But  the  Lutherans  had  no  sufficient  reason  for  the  clamor  which  they 
raised  about  their  Confession  being  altered ;  since  this  correction 
does  not  appear  to  have  been  made  without  the  knowledge  and  consent 
of  Luther,  who  lived  eight  years  afterwards,  and  never  opposed  it. 
On  the  contrary,  the  Confession,  thus  corrected,  was  approved  and 
received  by  the  most  eminent  divines,  princes,  and  electors  among  the 
Lutherans  ;  and  hence  it  was.  that  some  of  these  made  so  much  oppo- 
sition to  the  form  of  Concord  agreed  on  at  Berg,  in  1577,  as  adher- 
ing too  rigidly  to  what  they  called  the  Confession  unvaried.  Be- 
sides, consubstantiation  is  not  determinately  expressed  in  this  article; 
even  in  the  first  edition ;  and  much  less,  in  that  which  is  altered.  For 
when  it  was  said,  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  truly  present 
in  the  Lord's  supper,  it  may  be  understood  two  ways ;  as  meaning, 
either  that  they  are  present  spiritually,  being  offered  in  the  word  of 
promise,  and  received  by  faith  ;  or  that  they  are  present  in  a  corporal 
and  carnal  manner,  as  included  or  latent  in,  with  and  under  the  bread 
and  wine.  It  is  not  said,  whether  the' eating  by  those,  to  whom  the 
body  and  blood  of  the  Lord  are  distributed,  be  oralf  or  spiritual.  It 
is  not  said,  that  what  is  given  in  this  ordinance  to  unbelievers  is  truly 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  and  not  rather  the  bare  symbols, 
without  the  thing  signified.  This  article  therefore  may  be  explained 
and  admitted  in  a  sound  sense  ;  in  a  sense  which  Luther  himself  ex- 
pressed in  a  popular  sermon  in  the  year  1519 ;  namely,  '*  that  the 
union  in  the  sacrament,  between  the  sign  and  the  thing  signified,  is 
not  a  corporal  union  hy  local  proximity ,\  but  a  spiritual  union 
which  is  made  by  faith,  in  the  use  of  the  sacrament."  Hence  we 
may  understand  how  Mr.  Calvin  and  others  of  the  Reformed  church 
came  to  subscribe  the  Augsburgh  Confession,  notwithstanding  this 
article. 

On  the  whole,  the  harmony  of  the  Confessions  of  the  Reformed 
churches  is  such  as  evinces,  that  their  sacramental  communion  with 
one  another  on  the  ground  of  these  Confessions,  was  not  a  communion 
with  any  professed  and  obstinate  opposers  of  either  of  these  two  pro- 
positions ;  that  rites  and  ceremonies,  for  which  there  is  no  other  war- 
rant than  human  authority,  do  not  belong  to  the  true  worship  of  God; 
and,  that  there  is  no  legitimate  office  in  the  church  of  God  superior 

*  De  coena  Domini  decent,  quod  cnm  pane  et  vino  vere  exhibeantur  coq^us  et 
sanguis  Christi  vescentibus  in  coena  Domini. 

t  That  is,  with  our  bodily  mouth.  %  Per  adiastasian. 


148  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

to  that  of  the  pastor,  who  is  ordained  to  preach  the  word  and  admin- 
ister the  sacraments  ;  nor  was  it  a  communion  with  the  professed  and 
obstinate  opposers  of  any  of  the  other  doctrines,  whether  essential  or 
non-essential,  that  are  harmoniously  stated,  in  these  Confessions. 
And  it  appears  from  this  harmony  to  have  been  originally,  a  received 
principle  in  these  churches,  that  it  was  unwarrantable  to  have  sacra- 
mental communion  with  the  professed  and  obstinate  opposers  of  any 
of  those  truths,  for  which  in  their  Confessions  they  unanimously  dis- 
played a  banner. 

§  45.  Alex.  You  have  not  taken  notice  of  the  words,  which  I  men- 
tioned, of  the  Saxon  Confession,  viz.,  '*  That  there  have  been,  are,  and 
will  be  in  the  church  of  God,  men  holding  the  foundation^  who  have, 
and  have  had,  and  will  have,  some  more,  some  less  light :  sometimes 
saints,  too,  build  stubble  upon  the  foundation,  some,  especially  in  the 
wretchedness  of  the  present  times,  many  who  have  the  beginnings  of 
faith,  have  not  the  privilege  of  being  instructed,  and  of  conferring 
with  those  who  are  more  skilful.  These,  however,  are  in  the  number 
of  those  whom  it  is  the  will  of  God  we  should  spare,  who  groan  and 
grieve  on  account  of  established  error."  You  have  not  considered 
the  words  of  the  Bohemian  Confession,  namely,  "  That,  as  to  the  dif- 
ferences, which  may  obtain  among  the  churches  in  external  rites  and 
ceremonies,  we  think  it  of  no  importance ;  for  these  vary  among  chris- 
tians according  to  the  variety  of  place  and  nation.  Ceremonies 
change,  but  faith,  Christ,  the  word  change  not ;"  nor  have  you  con- 
sidered the  words  of  Luther  and  Melanchthon :  "  We  ought,"  says 
Luther,  "  to  congratulate  both  the  Waldenses,  (whose  faith  is  com- 
prehended in  this  Confession)  and  ourselves,  that  we,  who  were  far 
apart,  are  now,  by  the  destruction  of  the  parting  wall  of  suspicion, 
whereby  we  seemed  heretics  to  each  other,  brought  near  to  one  an- 
other, and  gathered  into  one  fold,  under  that  one  Shepherd  and  Bish- 
op of  our  souls,  who  is  blessed  for  ever,  amen.  But  if  certain  differ- 
ences from  other  churches  occur  in  this  Confession  of  theirs  concern- 
ing rites  and  ceremonies,  or  celibacy,  let  us  remember,  that  all  the 
rites  and  observances  of  all  the  churches,  never  were,  nor  could  be, 
the  same.  Such  an  agreement  is  not  permitted  by  the  various  cir- 
cumstances of  men,  of  time  and  place :  only  let  the  doctrine  of  faith 
and  morals  be  preserved.  For  this  ought  to  be  the  same,  according 
to  Paul's  admonition:  'Speak,'  says  he  'all  the  same  thing:'  and 
again,  'that  with  one  mouth  ye  may  glorify  the  God  and  Father  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.'  For  that  marriage  should  be  among  them, 
as  it  is  among  us,  their  condition  does  not  allow.  In  the  mean  time, 
it  is  sufficient,  that  what  is  lawful  to  all,  is  not  taught  to  be  sin  to 
any,  and  is  believed  without  injury  to  the  faith  and  conscience  of 
any  one." 

Nor  have  you  considered  the  words  of  Melanchthon  :  "  Since  we 
agree  in  the  principal  articles  of  christian  doctrine,  let  us  embrace  each 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  149 

other  with  mutual  love  ;  nor  ought  dissimilitude  and  variety  of  rites 
and  ceremonies  to  sever  our  affections.  I  most  earnestly  wish,  that 
those  who  love  the  gospel,  and  desire  to  glorify  the  name  of  Christ, 
may  not  destroy  themselves  by  domestic  feuds  and  discords,  especi- 
ally on  account  of  things  for  which  it  is  not  necessary  to  excite  dis- 
turbance. "* 

RuF.  Our  conversation  on  this  question  will  be  vain,  unless  we  at- 
tend to  the  true  state  of  it.  It  is  not  inquired,  whether  we  may  have 
sacramental  communion  with  any  who  differ  from  us  in  some  opinions 
or  customs.  In  opposing  catholic  communion  it  is  not  meant,  that 
every  such  difference  should  be  a  bar  to  sacramental  communion  ;  but 
the  question  is,  whether  a  professed  and  obstinate  opposition  to  any 
article  of  a  scriptural  profession,  or  to  any  part  of  that  scriptural  Re- 
formation, which  a  church  in  her  ecclesiastical  capacity  has  attained 
in  doctrine,  worship  or  government,  be  not  such  a  bar.  Now,  it  does 
not  appear,  that  such  opposition  is  expressed  in  the  Bohemian  Confes- 
sion to  any  article  of  the  scriptural  profession  of  the  Reformed  churches. 
With  regard  to  humanly  devised  rites  and  ceremonies,  they  are  not 
accounted  in  this,  more  than  in  the  other  confessions,  matters  of  re- 
ligion or  parts  of  Divine  worship. 

** Human  traditions,"  say  the  Bohemians,  "are  not  to  be  regarded 
as  inviolable  or  perpetual  laws.  But  as  they  were  introduced  on 
certain  occasions  for  good  reasons ;  so  on  other  occasions,  suggest- 
ing different  reasons,  they  may  be  violated  without  sin ;  as  the  apos- 
tles transgressed  the  tradition  of  the  elders  when  they  ate  bread  with 
unwashed  hands,  and  likewise  did  not  fast  with  others ;  in  both 
which  cases  their  conduct  was  excused  by  Christ,  as  being  without 
sin."  They  teach,  that,  when  such  traditions^  rites  and  ceremonies 
are  equalled  to  the  Divine  commands,  they  are  to  be  avoided  and  re- 
jected :  the  observers  of  them,  in  that  case,  being  liable  to  the  censure 
which  our  Lord  passed  on  the  observers  of  the  Jewish  traditions, 
"In  vain  do  they  worship  me,  teaching  for  doctrines  the  command- 
ments of  men.  "f 

There  seems  to  be  nothing  in  the  passage  you  have  recited  of  the 
Saxon  Confession  contrary  to  the  principles  we  maintain  in  opposing 
the  scheme  of  catholic  communion  now  pleaded  for.  The  case  of  such 
as  build  wood,  hay  and  stubble  on  the  foundation,  with  a  designed  op- 
position to  the  truth,  after  having  good  opportunity  of  knowing  it, 
and  with  obstinacy,  after  all  the  ordinary  means  have  been  used  for 
their  reformation,  is  carefully  to  be  distinguished  from  the  case  of  such 
as  do  so  from  the  want  of  light  and  instruction  ;  discovering  a  willing- 
ness to  be  reformed.     With  churches  and  professors  of  the  former 

*  Plea,  &c.,  pages  164, 165, 166,  167. 

t  Bohem.  Confess,  art.  15.    De  traditionibus  humanis. 


150  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

description  we  judge  it  unwarrantable  to  continue  to  have  sacramen- 
tal communion ;  but  we  do  not  refuse  to  hold  it  with  those  of  the 
latter  desciption  ;  which  last  is  the  case  referred  to  in  the  passage  of 
the  Saxon  Confession.  I  am  far  from  saying,  that  it  is  necessary  to 
warrantable  sacramental  communion,  that  all  those  who  partake  of  it 
should  have  the  same  degree  of  knowledge  or  of  faith.  It  is  mani- 
fest, that  the  condition  of  God's  people  does  not  admit  of  this  :  they 
are  different  in  respect  of  age,  some  being  fathers,  and  some  chil- 
dren ;  in  respect  of  character,  some  being  teachers,  and  some  taught ; 
and  in  respect  of  abilities,  some  having  more  discernment  in  the  mat- 
ters of  God  than  others.  But  the  truth  which  I  believe  in  op- 
position to  your  scheme  of  catholic  communion  is,  that  no  particular 
church,  or  her  members,  ought  to  have  sacramental  communion 
with  such  as  openly  and  obstinately  avow  their  denial  and  rejection 
of  any  one  article  of  her  public,  scriptural  profession. 

With  regard  to  the  words  of  Melanchthon,  it  may  be  observed,  that 
there  is  no  reason  to  doubt,  that  he  comprehended  more  in  what  he 
calls  "the  principal  articles  of  christian  doctrine,''  than  what  you 
mean  by  essentials.  The  Augsburgh  Confession,  which  Melanchthon 
wrote,  bears  this  title,  ''  The  Principal  Articles  of  the  Faith,"*  Will 
you  say  that  there  is  no  article  in  that  Confession  but  what  is  essen- 
tial ?  In  the  passage  you  have  quoted,  it  is  evident,  that  he  speaks  of 
the  articles  of  christian  doctrine  in  opposition  to  rites  and  ceremonies, 
and  things,  about  which  it  was  not  necessary  for  church  members  to 
make  a  stir,  or  to  trouble  themselves.  Melanchthon  would  not  have 
spoken  in  this  manner  of  any  article  of  his  public  profession,  which  he 
regarded  as  belonging  to  the  truth  of  God  contained  in  the  holy  scrip- 
tures. Such  expressions,  about  the  points  in  which  particular 
churches  differ,  being  fewer  and  of  less  importance,  than  those  in  which 
they  agree,  may  be,  and  have  often  been  used  with  propriety,  in  order 
to  promote  the  christian  charity  and  just  esteem  that  they  ought  to 
have  for  one  another ;  to  encourage  the  hope  of  further  harmony  and 
union  ;  and  to  strengthen  their  joint  endeavors  to  promote  their  com- 
mon profession  of  the  truths  of  God  in  opposition  to  seducers.  But 
that  the  worthy  defenders  of  the  Reformation,  when  they  used  such 
expressions,  meant  to  recommend  sacramental  communion  with  the 
avowed  and  obstinate  opposers  of  any  one  article  of  their  public  and 
scriptural  profession,  has  not  yet  been  proved. 

§  46.  Having  considered  the  design  and  harmony  of  the  Confessions 
of  the  Reformed  churches,  it  is  time  to  proceed  to  the  consideration 
of  another  topic  which  may  throw  light  upon  this  question.  The  topic 
I  mean  is  the  union  of  the  Protestant  churches  which  Mr.  Calvin 
proposed,  and  which  some  of  them  attempted  to  carry  into  effect. 
What   was  thus   proposed   and   attempted,    was   not  immediately 

*  Articuli  fidei  proBcipui. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  151 

sacramental  communion,  but  such  an  union  in  their  public  pro- 
fession and  administrations,  as  was  necessary  in  order  to  that  com- 
munion. 

Alex.  Mr.  Calvin  proposed  an  union  among  the  churches  in  a  let- 
ter to  Cranmer.  " I  wish,"  says  he,  "it  could  be  brought  about,  that 
men  of  learning  and  dignity  from  the  principal  churches  might  have  a 
meeting ;  and,  after  a  careful  discussion  of  the  several  points  of  faith, 
might  hand  down  to  posterity  the  doctrine  of  the  scripture,  settled  by 
theh'  common  judgment.  But  amongst  the  greatest  evils  of  our  age, 
this  also  is  to  be  reckoned,  that  our  churches  are  so  distracted  one  from 
another,  that  human  society  scarcely  flourishes  amongst  us  ;  much  less 
that  holy  communion  of  the  members  of  Christ,  which  all  profess  in 
words,  and  few  sincerely  cultivate  in  fact.  Thus  it  happens,  that  the 
body  of  the  church,  by  the  dissipation  of  its  members,  lies  torn  and 
mangled.  As  to  myself,  were  I  like  to  be  of  any  service,  I  should  not 
hesitate  to  cross  the  seas  for  that  purpose.  If  the  question  were  only 
concerning  giving  aid  to  England,  that  would  be  with  me  a  sufficiently 
powerful  reason.  Now,  when  the  object  is  to  obtain  such  an  agree- 
ment of  learned  men  upon  strict  scriptural  principles,  as  may  accom- 
plish an  union  of  churches  in  other  respects  widely  asunder,  I  do  not 
think  it  lawful  for  me  to  decline  any  labors  or  troubles."* 

RuF.  The  proposal  of  Calvin,  in  his  letter  to  Cranmer,  is  evidently 
intended  to  prevent  sacramental  communion  with  the  erroneous :  for 
the  business  of  the  meeting,  he  proposes,  of  pious  and  learned  men 
was,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  scripture  might  be  settled ;  that  the  sev- 
eral articles  of  that  doctrine  being  thus  ascertained,  might  be  a  bond 
of  union  among  the  churches ;  a  bond,  which  was  to  be  preserved  in- 
violate by  excluding  from  their  sacramental  communion  the  public 
teachers  and  maintainers  of  the  contrary  errors.  It  is  evident,  that,  if 
the  churchjss  left  the  door  open  for  the  entrance  of  such  persons  into 
their  communion,  those  truths,  however  correctly  ascertained  by  such 
eminent  divines,  would  neither  accomplish  the  union  of  these  churches, 
nor  be  handed  down  to  posterity,  according  to  Calvin's  design.  That 
eminent  reformer  was  well  persuaded,  that  union  of  love  among  churches 
and  their  members  depended  on  union  in  the  belief  of  the  truth ;  and 
that  the  latter  ought  to  be  the  beginning,  the  end,  and  the  only  rule 
of  the  former.  When  there  is  agreement,  says  he,  of  judgment  in 
Christ ;  then  there  will  also  be  union  in  mutual  benevolence  in  him. 
It  is  only  by  this  doctrine  of  Christ  that  we  come  to  be  knit  together 
in  a  pious  and  holy  union,  f 

*  Plea,  &c.  pages  187,  18& 

t  Caritatis  conjunctio  sic  a  fidei  unitate  pendet,  ut  haec  illius  initium,  finis, 
unica  denique  regula  esse  debeat.  Dum  mentes  in  Christo— consentiunt,  volunta- 
tes  etiam  nostrae  mutua  in  Christo  benevolcntia  inter  se  conjunctae  sunt.  Sola 
Christi,  doctrinain  piam  et  sanctam  unitatem  coaleseimus.  Institut.  lib.  iv.  cap. 
2da  sect.  5. 


152  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

Alex.  What  Calvin  projected  upon  a  large  scale,  was  actually  at- 
tempted and  executed,  after  his  death,  upon  a  smaller  one.  The  agree- 
ment of  Poland*  at  the  synod  of  Sandomir  in  1570,  six  years  after 
Calvin's  decease,  embracing  the  churches  of  greater  and  lesser  Poland, 
which  were  organized  under  the  Augsburgh  or  Lutheran,  and  under 
the  Helvetian  or  Swiss  Confessions ;  as  also  under  the  Confession  of 
the  Waldenses,  was  bottomed  upon  those  comprehensive  principles , 
which  supported  the  plan  of  Calvin.  This  consensus  was  for  the  ex- 
press purpose  of  wiping  away  the  reproach  of  their  enemies,  and  of 
promoting  brotherly  concord  and  communion,  on  the  ground  of  their 
agreement  to  the  leading  truths  of  the  gospel ;  all  things  else  being 
matters  of  forbearance. 

"Of  this  holy  and  mutual  agreement,"  say  they,  "we  have  thought 
and  agreed,  that  it  would  be  a  confirmation,  if  as  they,"  the  Lutherans, 
"bear  witness  that  we,  and  our  churches  and  our  Confession,  publish- 
ed in  this  synod,  and  the  churches  and  Confession  of  the  brethren,  the 
Waldenses,  are  orthodox ;  so  also  we  should  manifest  the  same  chris- 
tian love  towards  their  churches,  and  acknowledge  their  orthodoxy ; 
and  should,  on  both  sides,  consign  to  silence,  all  quarrels,  distractions, 
and  dissensions,  by  which  the  cause  of  the  gospel,  to  the  very  great 
offence  of  many  pious  people,  is  hindered ;  and  by  which  no  small  oc- 
casion is  furnished  to  our  adversaries  both  of  calumniating  ourselves 
and  of  opposing  our  true  christian  religion.  It  is  rather  our  duty  to 
study  the  public  peace ;  to  exercise  mutual  charity ;  and  to  employ, 
according  to  our  brotherly  union,  our  mutual  efforts  for  the  edification 
of  the  church. 

"  We,  moreover,  pledge  ourselves  to  use  our  utmost  endeavors  to 
persuade  and  incite  all  our  brethren  to  embrace,  respect  and  preserve 
this  our  christian  and  unanimous  agreement ;  and  to  cherish  and  seal 
it.  especially  by  the  hearing  of  the  word  (in  frequenting  the  assemblies 
of  both  Confessions,)  and  by  the  use  of  the  sacraments ;  always  ob- 
serving good  order,  and  the  rule  both  of  discipline  and  custom  in  each 
of  the  churches  respectively. 

"But  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  each  church  we  do,  by  this  our  hearty 
consent,  leave  free  :  for  it  is  no  great  matter  what  rites  are  observed, 
provided,  the  doctrine  and  foundation  of  our  faith  and  salvation  be  kept 
entire  and  uncorrupt,  as  the  Augsburgh  and  Saxon  Confessions  teach 
on  that  head ;  and  as  we  have  expressed  the  same  in  this  our  Confes- 
sion published  in  the  present  synod  of  Sandomir.  And  to  complete 
this  our  consent  and  agreement,  we  have  thought,  that,  in  order  to 
preserve  this  our  brotherly  association,  it  will  not  be  inconvenient  to 
meet  at  some  appointed  place,  where  we  may  together  form  a  compend 
of  doctrine  taken  from  our  mutual  Confessions ;  and  publish  it  to  the 
world,  to  stop  the  mouths  of  invidious  men,  and  minister  great  conso- 

*  Polonige  Consensus. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  153 

lation  to  all  the  pious.  Having,  therefore,  given  to  each  other  the 
right  hand  of  union,  we  have  all  sacredly  promised  and  pledged  our- 
selves, to  cultivate,  nourish  and  daily  to  aim  at  increasing  our  faith  and 
peace  to  the  building  up  of  the  Kingdom  of  God ;  and  that  we  will 
shun  all  occasions  of  distracting  the  churches.  Finally,  we  have  pledg- 
ed ourselves,  that,  regardless  of  selfish  considerations,  as  it  becomes 
the  true  ministers  of  God,  we  will  promote  the  glory  of  Jesus  Christ 
our  Saviour  alone,  and  will  propagate  the  truth  of  his  gospel  by  word 
and  work. 

*'  And  that  this  agreement  may  be  firmly  established  for  ever,  we 
ardently  pray  to  God  our  Father,  the  Author  and  exuberant  fountain 
of  all  peace  and  consolation  who  delivered,  us  and  our  churches  from 
the  gross  darkness  of  Popery,  and  granted  us  the  pure  and  sacred  light 
of  his  word  and  truth,  that  he  would  bless  our  peace  and  union  to  the 
glory  of  his  name,  and  the  edification  of  his  church.  To  this  instrument 
were  added  the  subscriptions  of  eminent  persons,  representing  the  sev- 
eral churches  to  which  they  belonged." 

This  agreement  was  unanimously  confirmed  in  general  synod  at 
Cracow,  1573.  The  whole  synod,  the  brethren,  superintendents,  elders, 
ministers,  patrons  and  all  the  rest  ratified  and  sealed  that  holy  consent 
and  union  ;  and  after  joining  together  in  the  communion  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  our  Lord,  according  to  the  ceremonies  of  the  church  of 
Cracow,  they  returned  home,  rejoicing  in  brotherly  love  and  praising 
the  Lord. 

This  agreement  was  renewed  by  a  general  synod  at  Petrikow  in 
1578  ;  by  another  general  synod  at  Uladislaw  in  1583  ;  by  another 
at  Tornaw  in  Hungary  in  1585  ;  and  by  another  at  the  same  place 
in  1595,  and  continued  to  be  religiously  observed  as  late  at  least  as 
1634. 

RuF.  It  seems  obvious,  that  this  agreement  of  the  Polish  churches 
cannot  be  considered  as  an  example  of  the  catholic  communion  now 
pleaded  for. 

1.  This  agreement  supposes  the  harmony  of  the  Confessions  of  the 
parties  who  entered  into  it.  The  Lutherans  acknowledged  the  Helve- 
tian Confession  and  that  of  the  Bohemian  brethren  to  be  orthodox;  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  those  who  professed  adherence  to  these  Confessions 
acknowledged  the  Augsburgh  Confession,  (which  is  that  of  the  Lu- 
therans,) to  be  orthodox.  Consequently,  their  profession  had  been  al- 
ways one  ;  and  now  they  declare  it  to  be  so ;  in  order  that  the  ground 
of  their  sacramental  communion  might  be  better  understood.  This 
agreement  is  very  different  from  the  scheme  of  catholic  communion  now 
pleaded  for ;  that  is,  our  sacramental  communion  with  Episcopalians, 
with  Baptists,  with  Methodists  and  others,  whom  we,  in  our  public 
profession,  deny  to  be  orthodox. 

This  agreement  declares,  that  they,  who  entered  into  it,  received  the 
article  of  the  Augsburgh  Confession  concerning  Christ's  presence  in 


154  ALEXANDER  AND   RUFUS. 

the  Lord's  supper  according  to  the  edition  given  by  Melanchthon  in 
the  year  1538. 

"  The  sacraments,"  say  they,  "are  actions  Divinely  instituted,  and  the 
elements  of  bread  and  wine,  out  of  the  instituted  use  of  them,  have 
not  the  nature  of  a  sacrament ;  but,  in  the  instituted  use  of  them,  in 
this  communion,  Christ  is  truly  and  substantially  present,  and  his 
body  and  bloood  are  truly  exhibited  to  the  partakers.  "*  The  term 
substantially  is  much  the  same  with  really,  and  is  used  by  Calvin  on 
this  subject.  He  says,  "  These  absurdities,"  viz.,  those  of  the  Ubiqui- 
tarian  scheme  being  rejected,  "  I  willingly  admit  whatever  serves  to 
express  the  true  and  substantial  communication  of  the  Lord's  body  and 
blood,  "f  It  should  also  be  remembered,  that  this  agreement  was  en- 
tered into  several  years  before  the  form  of  Concord  agreed  on  at  Berg, 
which  asserts  the  absurd  scheme  just  now  mentioned. 

2.  They,  who  entered  into  this  agreement,  declared,  that  they  con- 
sidered their  participation  of  the  Lord's  supper  as  a  confession,  that 
they  embraced  the  system  of  doctrine  professed  in  the  particular  church 
with  which  they  communicated.  J  But,  according  to  the  advocates  for 
the  catholic  scheme,  our  participation  of  the  Lord's  supper  does  not 
imply  our  embracing  the  system  of  doctrine,  held  by  any  particular 
church :  for,  say  they,  in  the  act  of  communicating,  we  have  nothing  to 
do  with  the  defects  of  our  respective  churches,  or  with  any  other  thing, 
than  this  ordinance  itself. 

3.  It  was  agreed,  that  no  one  of  the  churches  belonging  to  this  con- 
federation should  draw  away  the  ministers  or  hearers  of  any  of  the  rest ; 
but  should  encourage  them  to  remain  in  their  respective  churches. 
And  the  ministers  of  each  of  these  churches  were  to  teach  and  admo- 
nish their  hearers,  with  pastoral  authority,  to  beware  of  censuring  any 
point  of  the  doctrine  or  rites  of  the  other  churches  ;  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, to  think  and  speak  well  of  them.||  From  this  engagement  it 
appears,  that  there  were  no  such  differences  among  those  churches  of 
Poland,  as  there  are  among  those,  which,  according  to  your  scheme  of 

*  Docentur  homines,  sacramenta  esse  actiones  divinitus  institutas,  et  extra 
usum  institutum  res  ipsas  non  habere  ratioueni  sacramenti,  sed  in  usu  institute  in 
hac  communione  vere  et  substantialiter  adesse  Christum  et  vere  exhiberi  sumen- 
tibus  corpus  et  sanguinem  Christi.  Syntagma  Confessionum,  prima  parte,  page 
166. 

t  His  absurditatibus  sublatis,  quicquid  ad  experimendam  verara  substantialem- 
que  corporis  et  sanguinis  Domini  communicationem,  quae  sub  sacris  coenae  sym- 
bolis  fidelibus  exhibetur,  facere  potest,  libenter  accipio.  Institut.  lib.  4.  cap.  17. 
sect.  19. 

X  Quarta  institutiones  hujus  causa  vult  banc  publicam  sumptionem,  confession- 
em  esse,  qua  ostendis  quod  doctrinae  genus  amplectaris,  cui  caeteri  te  adjungas. 
Ibid,  page  165. 

i  Syntagmete  Confess.  2da  parte,  page  223. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  155 

catholic  communion,  should  communicate  together.  Presbyterians  be- 
lieve prelacy  to  be  a  criminal  usurpation  in  the  church  of  God :  they 
believe,  that  antipaedobaptism  robs  infants  of  their  sacred  right ;  and 
that  the  use  of  any  uncommanded  rite,  as  a  part  of  religious  worship, 
is  superstitious.  We  cannot  reasonably  suppose,  that  any  Presbyterian 
ministers  would  come  under  an  engagement  to  exhort  their  hearers  to 
think  and  speak  well  of  these  things.  As  little  can  we  suppose,  that 
the  ministers  of  Poland  would  have  come  under  the  engagement  now 
mentioned,  if  there  had  been  any  such  differences  among  them.  We 
must,  therefore,  conclude  that,  as  they  had  no  such  differences,  so 
their  sacramental  communion  together  could  be  no  example  of  our  sac- 
ramental communion  with  other  churches,  while  such  differences  sub- 
sist between  them  and  us. 

4.  The  scheme  of  catholic  communion  now  pleaded  for  supposes 
that  none  are  to  be  excluded  for  their  errors  or  offences  in  non-essen- 
tials. This  opinion  is  quite  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  Consensus  or 
agreement  under  consideration ;  which  appoints  all  obstinate  trans- 
gressors of  the  decrees  of  any  of  the  canons  of  the  general  synod  be- 
longing to  these  churches  contained  in  the  book  of  their  government ; 
all  who  did  not  agree  with  them  in  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel ;  or  who 
embraced  idolatry  or  heresy ;  in  fine,  all  who  refused  to  continue  in 
this  agreement,  to  be  excommunicated  without  any  delay.  Accord- 
ing to  this  agreement,  such  as  neglected  to  receive  the  Lord's  supper, 
without  good  reasons,  or  the  advice  of  their  ministers  three  times  or  a 
whole  year ;  or  who  habitually  neglected  to  attend  the  assemblies  in 
their  respective  places  of  public  worship,  were  liable  to  the  same  cen- 
sure.* 

In  short,  the  spirit  of  this  Consensus  or  agreement  of  the  Polish 
churches,  is  quite  contrary  to  that  of  the  catholic  sacramental  commun- 
ion now  pleaded  for.  The  manifest  acknowledged  tendency  of  that 
scheme,  is  to  draw  away  particular  churches  and  their  members  from 
a  more  particular  and  determinate  profession  of  various  articles  of  the 
christian  religion,  to  a  more  general  and  ambiguous  one.  Whereas, 
this  Consensus  is  more  particular  and  explicit,  both  in  points  of  doc- 
trine and  discipline,  than  the  Confessions  which  had  been  held  before 
by  the  churches  that  joined  in  it ;  while  no  article  of  any  of  these  con- 
fessions was  dropt,  or  ceased  to  belong  to  their  public  profession.  The 
truth  is,  it  was  an  agreement  to  maintain  a  faithful  testimony  against 
the  errors  which  then  prevailed  in  Poland. 

Alex.  It  appears  from  the  records  preserved  in  Quick's  Synodicon 
of  the  synod  of  St.  Foy,  in  France,  that  an  assembly  of  many  deputies 
from  sundry  famous  reformed  churches,  kingdoms,  and  provinces,  met 
at  Fiankfort,  in  15 tT,  by  invitation  of  the  Pftnce  Elector,  John  Casi- 

*  See  the  canons  of  the  general  synod  at  Tornaw.  Syntagma  Confessionum, 
parte  2da,  page  246.  The  edition  of  the  Syntagma,  here  quoted,  is  that  printed  at 
Geneva,  in  1654. 


156  ALEXA.NDER  AND  RUFUS. 

mir,  Prince  Palatine ;  that  they  laid  down  several  means  and  expe- 
dients for  uniting  all  the  Reformed  churches  into  one  common  bond  of 
union.  This  proposal  was  received  with  great  satisfaction  by  the  gen- 
eral synod  of  the  French  churches. 

The  same  design  was  prosecuted  by  the  synod  of  Figeac,  in  1579, 
at  which,  consultation  was  held  on  the  most  proper  means  of  uniting 
the  several  confessions,  which  agreed  in  doctrine,  into  one  common 
confession ;  to  be  afterwards  approved  by  the  several  Protestant 
churches. 

The  synod  of  Vitre,  in  1583,  embraced  a  proposal,  made  in  their 
own  body,  for  an  union  and  agreement  between  the  churches  of  Ger- 
many and  theirs. 

Twenty  years  afterwards,  in  1603,  at  the  synod  of  Gap,  the  breth- 
ren of  Dauphiny  desired  that  some  means  might  be  contrived  for  a 
conference  and  union  with  the  Lutheran  churches  in  Germany,  in 
order  that  the  schism  between  them  and  the  French  churches  might  be 
removed. 

A  proposal  was  made  to  the  French  churches,  by  a  gentleman  of  the 
name  of  Hume,  on  the  authority  of  James,  King  of  Great  Britain,  for 
reuniting  the  churches  of  divers  nations  into  one  and  the  self-same 
confession  and  doctrine.  This  proposal  is  obscurely  hinted  in  a  letter 
from  James,  dated  March  15th,  1614.  Accordingly,  at  the  general 
synod  held  at  Tonneins  in  May  following,  they  drew  the  outlines  of  a 
detailed  plan  of  union ;  in  which  plan,  the  first  thing  proposed,  was  to 
avoid  the  Arminian  controversy.  Out  of  the  several  confessions  of 
the  Reformed  churches,  one  was  to  be  framed  common  to  them  all ;  in 
which  general  confession  divers  points  might  be  omitted,  the  knowl- 
edge of  which  is  not  needful  to  our  everlasting  happiness :  among 
which,  the  controversy  moved  by  Piscator,  and  several  other  subtile 
opinions  broached  by  Van  Armin*  about  free  will,  the  saint's  perse- 
verance, and  predestination  were  to  be  reckoned.  The  second  thing 
proposed,  was  to  avoid  contentions  about  ceremonies  and  church  gov- 
ernment: a  difference  in  these  respects  not  hindering  our  agreement  in 
the  same  faith  and  doctrine ;  or  our  cordial  embracing  each  other  as 
true  believers  and  joint  members  of  one  and  the  same  body.  The  third 
thing  proposed,  was  to  waive  the  points  in  debate  between  the  Re- 
formed and  the  Lutherans ;  and  for  this  end,  to  model  their  agreement 
after  the  Concord  of  the  Polish  churches,  made  at  Sandomir,  in  the 
year  15Y0. 

It  was  proposed,  that  the  deputies  from  the  reformed  churches  should 
close  their  deliberations  on  this  plan,  after  a  most  religious  fast,  with 
the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  supper;  wherein  the  pastors  from  Eng- 
land and  the  other  nations  should  all  communicate  together. 

This  plan  for  Protestant  union  did  not  only  contemplate  the  recip- 

•*Anninius. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  157 

rocation  of  ministerial  and  christian  fellowship  in  the  several  churches ; 
for  that  had  been  in  regular  practice  among  Protestants  all  along.  It 
went  much  farther ;  even  to  the  organization  of  the  whole  Protestant 
interest  in  a  Ytuhlic  federative  union;  each  of  the  component  churches, 
however,  retaining  its  own  independence  and  internal  order.  It  was 
Calvin's  plan  renewed  or  prosecuted. 

It  may  be  farther  observed,  that  the  activity  of  the  French  churches 
in  promoting  this  plan,  furnished  no  proof  of  their  having  declined 
from  their  soundness  in  the  faith,  or  their  zeal  in  maintaining  it.  For 
in  1617,  their  general  synod  of  Yitre  appointed  commissioners  to  at- 
tend the  synod  of  Dort,  for  the  purpose  of  deciding  on  the  several 
points  of  the  Arminian  controversy  :  and  at  their  general  synod  held 
at  Alez,  in  1620,  they  unanimously  approved  the  articles  agreed  upon 
at  Dort ;  and  ordered  them  to  be  sworn  and  subscribed  by  the  pastors 
and  elders  of  their  churches,  and  by  the  doctors  and  professors  of  their 
universities.  How  cordially  they  could  take  to  their  bosom  the  very 
persons,  against  whose  errors  they  raised  the  voice  of  their  testimony, 
provided  these  errors  subverted  not  the  foundation  of  their  faith,  is 
shown  by  an  act  of  the  second  synod  of  Charenton,  in  1631,  in  favor 
of  the  Lutheran  brethren ;  declaring  that,  as  the  churches  of  the  Con- 
fession of  Augsburgh  do  agree  with  the  other  reformed  churches  in  the 
principal  and  fundamental  points  of  the  true  religion;  and  as  there  is 
neither  superstition  nor  idolatry  in  their  worship,  the  faithful  of  the 
said  Confession,  who  with  a  spirit  of  love  and  peaceableness  do  join 
themselves  to  the  communion  of  our  churches  in  this  kingdom,  may  be, 
without  any  abjuration  at  all  made  by  them,  admitted  to  the  Lord's 
table  with  us  ;  and,  as  sureties,  may  present  children  to  baptism  ;  they 
promising  the  consistory  that  they  will  never  solicit  these  children, 
either  directly  or  indirectly,  to  transgress  the  doctrine  believed  and  pro- 
fessed in  our  churches ;  but  will  be  content  to  educate  them  in  those 
points  and  articles  in  which  both  we  and  the  Lutherans  are  unanimous- 
ly agreed.* 

RuF.  You  have  observed,  that  this  plan  for  Protestant  union,  did 
not  only  contemplate  the  reciprocation  of  ministerial  and  christian  fel- 
lowship in  the  several  churches  ;  for  that  had  been  in  regular  practice 
among  Protestants  all  along.  This  is  true.  These  churches  had  all 
separated  from  the  Popish  church  ;  and  they  agreed  in  their  testimony 
against  the  errors  and  corruptions  of  that  church.  Their  attention 
was  engaged,  and  their  hearts  endeared  to  one  another  by  the  common 
cause.  Hence,  they  communicated  together  without  scruple.  Con- 
sidering the  local  situations  of  these  churches,  the  little  communica- 
tion they  had  at  first  with  one  another,  and  the  variety  of  their  means 
of  information,  it  was  no  wonder  that  there  were  differences  of  opinion 
and  practice.     It  was,  indeed,  owing  to  a  remarkable  measure  of  the 

*Plea,  &c.,  pages  197,  19S,  199,  200—206. 


158  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

presence  and  Spirit  of  God  with  tliem,  that  they  attained  the  harmony 
of  doctrine  which  is  so  conspicuous  in  their  confessions.  While  this 
harmony  continued,  there  was  no  occasion  for  the  catholic  communion 
now  pleaded  for.  But  differences  soon  began  to  appear ;  which,  un- 
less they  were  removed,  they  were  sensible,  would  interrupt  their 
communion :  for  they  could  not  walk  together,  except  they  were 
agreed.  The  removal  of  their  differences  seems  to  have  been  the  ob- 
ject of  the  several  proposals  of  union  which  you  have  mentioned. 
Sometimes  a  difference  may  arise  from  a  misunderstanding  of  a  doc- 
trine or  practice ;  and  may  be  removed  by  a  more  particular  explica- 
tion. Sometimes  it  arises  fi-om  real  error  held  by  one  church  in  oppo- 
sition to  a  scriptural  truth  proposed  by  another  church.  The  differ- 
ence, last  mentioned,  cannot  be  removed  without  a  renunciation  of  the 
error. 

In  these  two  ways,  such  men  as  Calvin  honestly  labored  to  bring 
churches  and  their  members  to  union.  But  others,  led  by  carnal  pol- 
icy, have  attempted  to  bring  churches  and  their  members  to  a  pre- 
tended union ;  which  consisted  in  an  agreement  to  differ,  and  to  ac- 
quiesce in  a  general  and  deceitful  way  of  expressing  a  doctrine  that 
had  been  controverted,  declining  the  plain  and  honest  expression  of  it 
that  had  been  used  in  the  public  profession  of  one  or  another  of  the 
parties.  This,  indeed,  is  the  plan  of  your  scheme  of  catholic  commun- 
ion. But  it  is  dealing  deceitfully  in  the  matters  of  God.  The  pre- 
tended healing  of  divisions  in  this  way,  is  a  healing  of  the  wound  of 
God's  people  slightly,  saying,  peace,  peace,  while  there  is  no  peace. 
Of  this  kind  the  proposal  seems  to  have  been,  which  you  mentioned, 
of  union  among  the  chuches,  in  the  way  of  conniving  at  superstitious 
ceremonies  and  prelatical  church  government.  It  is  not  unlike  the 
kingcraft  of  James  the  First,  but  suits  ill  with  the  excellent  character 
of  the  Reformed  church  of  France,  at  that  time.  For  what  end  were 
these  churches  to  unite,  if  it  was  not  for  maintaining  such  evangelical 
truths,  as  those  denied  by  the  Arminians  and  by  Piscator  ?  The 
churches  of  France  had,  some  years  before  the  date  of  this  proposal, 
justly  condemned  the  peculiar  opinion  of  Piscator  concerning  the  ac- 
tive obedience  of  Christ ;  and  in  their  national  assembly  at  Rochelle, 
had  asserted,  in  opposition  to  Piscator's  error,  that  the  whole  obedience 
of  Christ,  both  in  his  life  and  death,  is  imputed  to  us  for  our  justifica- 
tion before  God.  But  how  their  approving  the  canons  of  the  synod  of 
Dort,  and  appointing  them  to  be  sworn  and  subscribed  by  the  pastors 
and  elders  of  their  churches,  could  consist  with  a  proposal  of  admitting 
to  their  sacramental  communion  those  whom  these  canons  condemn  as 
gross  heretics,  I  confess,  I  do  not  understand. 

At  the  general  synod  held  at  Tonneins,  the  outlines  of  this  plan  of 
union  are  said  to  have  been  drawn.  It  is  not  said,  however,  that  the 
synod  approved  these  outlines.  But  if  they  did  approve  them,  they 
retracted  their  approbation  a  few  years  afterward,   when  they  solemn- 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  159 

ly  adopted  the  articles  of  the  synod  of  Dort.  There  is,  indeed,  no 
reason  to  doubt,  that  the  reformed  churches  of  France^ understood  bet- 
ter, after  the  synod  of  Dort,  how  diametrically  opposite  the  opinions 
broached  by  Yan  Armin  were  to  the  doctrine  of  their  confession,  than 
they  had  done  before.  Considering  that  the  Arminian  scheme  includes 
some  of  the  most  pernicious  errors  of  Popery,  how  reproachful  it  is  to 
the  memory  of  Calvin,  to  call  such  a  base  proposal,  his  plan  revived  and 
prosecuted  ?  Did  Mr.  Calvin  ever  speak  of  independent  churches  in 
the  one  church  of  Christ  ?  Or  of  promoting  union,  by  holding  sacra- 
mental communion  with  the  professed  teachers  of  false  doctrine,  as 
every  Arminian  teacher  is,  or  with  the  professed  defenders  of  supersti- 
tion in  the  worship  of  God  ?  By  no  means. 

With  regard  to  the  attempts  that  were  made  to  bring  about  union 
with  the  Lutheran  churches,  that  is,  with  such  of  them  as  had  not 
adopted  the  form  of  Concord  published  in  15t7,  nor  gone  into  the  ex- 
tremes of  the  Ubiquitarians,  there  seems  to  be  no  difficulty ;  since  none 
of  the  articles  of  the  Augsburgh  Confession  had  been  condemned  by 
any  of  the  reformed  churches.  On  this  account,  the  act  of  the  synod 
of  Charenton  in  favor  of  the  Lutheran  brethren,  cannot  be  considered 
as  a  precedent  for  the  motley  communion  now  pleaded  for ;  and  also, 
because  the  conditions  of  church  communion,  stated  in  that  act,  are  such 
as  no  avowed  and  obstinate  enemy  to  any  one  article  of  the  Confession 
of  the  Reformed  church  of  France,  could  acquiesce  in  without  the 
grossest  inconsistency. 

§  4t.  Alex.  If  from  France,  we  pass  to  Holland,  we  shall  there  find 
the  same  generous  feeling  towards  all  the  parts  of  the  church  of  God. 
The  Belgick  Confession,  which  shows  in  what  light  the  church  there  con- 
templated the  privilege  and  duty  of  church  communion,  received  the 
unqualified  approbation  of  the  continental  divines,  at  the  Synod  of 
Dort,  in  1618.  And  it  received  also,  with  the  exception  of  its  articles 
on  church  government,  the  approbation  of  the  Episcopal  divines  who 
were  sent  thither  by  James  I.  Here  was  a  collection  of  representatives 
of  the  reformed  churches,  various  in  their  modifications  of  order  and 
rites  of  worship  ;  yet  one  in  the  common  faith  of  the  gospel :  Dutch, 
German,  Genevese,  Swiss,  all  non-episcopal,  with  an  English  bishop 
and  other  Episcopal  delegates,  met  together  to  discuss  one  of  the  most 
serious  controversies  that  ever  agitated  the  church  of  God ;  and  united 
in  the  most  solemn  acts  of  ministerial  communion. 

Dr.  Joseph  Hall,  then  dean  of  Worcester,  and  afterwards  bishop  of 
Norwich,  delivered  a  sermon  in  Latin  before  the  synod,  in  which  he 
salutes  the  church  of  Holland  as  the  pure  spouse  of  Christ.  From 
these  arrangements  it  appears,  that  the  reformed  churches,  Episcopal 
and  non-episcopal,  did  not  scruple  in  those  days  to  join  with  each  other 
in  acts  of  public  worship,  according  to  their  respective  usages.  Much 
less  did  any  of  them  look  upon  any  other  as  not  being  true  churches, 
and  upon  their  ministry  and  ordinances  as  unlawful  and  invalid.     Such 


160  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

a  notion,  concerning  churches  without  Episcopal  order  and  ordination, 
had  not  yet  infected  the  church  of  England.  Her  representatives  at 
Dort  call  the  ministers  of  the  Dutch  church,  beloved  brethren  and  fel- 
low-ministers. The  views  and  feelings  of  Dr.  Hall  correspond  en- 
tirely with  those  of  the  whole  Synod :  for  they  call  his  discourse  most 
learned  and  accurate,  and  gave  him  public  thanks  for  it.  So  that, 
considering  how  the  synod  was  constituted,  it  may  be  taken  as  an  offi- 
cial expression  of  the  views  and  feelings  of  reformed  Europe.  At  the 
close  of  the  synod,  the  members  mutually  gave  each  other  the  right 
hand  of  fellowship,  and  parted  with  embracings  and  tears. 

As  to  the  church  of  Holland,  it  is  well  known,  that  she  practised  the 
liberal  communion  of  which  those  illustrious  deputies  sanctioned  the 
principle,  and  set  an  example.  For  her  members,  before  that,  com- 
municated with  the  Brownists,  the  English  Independents,  who  fled  from 
oppressions  in  their  own  country;  although,  by  a  singular  inconsisten- 
cy, the  Brownist  teachers  would  not  consent  to  reciprocate  the  com- 
munion any  farther  than  in  prayer  and  hearing  the  word ;  and  that  in 
the  face  of  their  own  protestation,  wherein  they  say,  We  account  the 
reformed  churches  as  true  and  genuine ;  we  profess  communion  with 
them  in  the  sacred  things  of  Grod ;  and  as  much  as  in  us  lies,  we  cul- 
tivate it ;  an  inconsistency,  which  it  is  heartily  to  be  wished  had  stood 
alone,  and  had  not  been  kept  in  countenance  by  the  profession  and 
practice  of  later  days  ;  but  which,  at  that  time,  was  equalled  only  by 
the  inconsistency  of  the  English  government,  in  supporting  the  non- 
episcopal  churches  abroad,  and  persecuting  the  very  same  sort  of 
churches  at  home.  The  church  of  Holland,  was  ready  to  communicate 
in  the  sacraments  with  the  English  dissenters,  as  well  as  with  the  estab- 
lishment ;  and  actually  appointed  one  of  the  former,  the  learned  and 
excellent  Dr.  William  Ames,  professor  of  Theology  in  the  university 
of  Franeker. 

In  like  manner,  thirty  years  afterward,  in  1651,  that  holy  man  of 
God,  Samuel  Rutherford,  of  St.  Andrews,  in  Scotland,  was  invited  to 
the  professor's  chair,  in  the  city  of  Utrecht.  In  fact,  the  churches  of 
Holland  and  Scotland,  like  the  Reformed  churches  on  the  continent, 
considered  and  treated  each  other  as  parts  of  a  common  whole ;  and, 
furnished  by  their  connection  and  intercourse,  as  they  had  opportunity,  a 
sample  of  catholic  communion  to  which  the  obligation  is  so  clearly  as- 
serted in  their  confessions.* 

RuF.  I  have  no  doubt,  that  the  Belgick  Confession  received  the  un- 
qualified approbation  of  the  continental  divines ;  this  being  a  native 
consequence  of  what  has  been  stated  concerning  the  harmony  of  the 
confessions  of  the  reformed  churches.  Their  sacramental  communion 
upon  this  ground,  as  we  have  seen,  was  no  example  of  the  catholic 
sacramental  communion  now  contended  for.     There   was  indeed   a 

*  Plea,  &c.  peges  206,  207—312. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  161 

greater  appearance  of  such  an  example  in  the  communion  of  these 
churches  with  the  bishop  and  other  members  of  the  church  of  England. 
I  do  not  say,  I  approve  of  this  communion  absolutely,  or  in  all  res- 
pects. But  though  the  reformed  churches  in  France,  in  Germany,  and 
in  Holland,  disliked  the  Episcopacy  of  the  church  of  England,  none 
of  them  had  ever  stated  a  formal  separation  from  that  church ;  and  she 
had  not  stated  a  formal  separation  from  them.  They  know  that  the 
first  reformers  in  England,  such  as  Cranmer,  Jewel  and  others,  spoke 
of  the  identity  of  the  office  of  bishop  and  presbyter,  and  humanly  de- 
vised rites  and  ceremonies,  as  no  part  of  rehgious  worship,  much  in 
the  same  terms  with  those  which  are  used  concerning  them  in  the  con- 
fessions of  the  other  reformed  churches  ;  and  they  still  had  hopes  that 
the  church  of  England  would  go  forward  in  Reformation.  In  short, 
while  that  church  had  not  stated  any  opposition  to  the  profession  of 
the  reformed  churches,  nor  these  churches  any  opposition  to  her  pro- 
fession, their  sacramental  communion  with  her  was  no  example  of  the 
catholic  communion  now  pleaded  for.  It  is  plain,  that  there  was 
nothing  at  this  time  to  hinder  the  church  of  Scotland  from  having 
sacramental  communion  with  any  of  the  reformed  churches  excepting 
the  church  of  England  ;  as  nothing  had  been  stated  in  her  public  pro- 
fession in  opposition  to  any  other  of  them;  nor  in  the  public  profes- 
sion of  these  other  churches  in  opposition  to  her. 

You  observe,  that  while  the  members  of  the  church  of  Holland 
communicated  with  the  Brownist  teachers,  these  teachers^  by  a  sin- 
gular inconsistency,  would  not  consent  to  reciprocate  the  communion 
any  farther  than  in  prayer  and  hearing  the  word ;  and  that  in  the 
face  of  Robinson's  Protestation,  in  which  he  declared,  that  they  ac- 
counted the  reformed  churches  as  true  and  genuine ;  and  that  they 
professed  communion  with  them  in  the  sacred  things  of  Grod.  But 
you  forgot  to  add  (what  aggravates  the  inconsistency  of  the  Brownists; 
but  serves,  at  the  same  time,  to  show  that  the  conduct  of  the  church 
of  Holland,  in  communicating  with  them,  was  no  example  of  the  cath- 
olic communion  which  is  now  contended  for)  that  Roljinson  also  de- 
clared the  adherence  of  the  Brownists  or  Congregationalists^  to  the 
confessions  of  the  Reformed  churches,  in  this  very  solemn  manner  : 
*'  We  profess,  before  God  and  men,  we  so  agree  with  the  reformed 
church  of  Holland,  that  we  are  willing  to  subscribe  all,  and  each  of 
the  articles  of  faith  of  these  churches^  as  they  are  contained  in  the  har- 
mony of  the  confessions  of  faith."*  Now,  if  the  church  of  Holland 
had  sacramental  communion  with  these  ministers  and  people,  upon 
the  ground  of  his  declaration,  it  could  be  no  example  of  the  catholic 
communion  in  question ;  because,  according  to  that  declaration  there 

*  Profitemur  coram  Deo  et  homiuibiis,  acleo  nobis  convenire  cum  Ecclesiis  Re- 
formatis  Belgicis,  ut  omnibus  et  singulis  earundem  Ecclesiarum  fidei  articulis 
prout  habentur  in  harmonia  confessionum  fidei ;  parati  sumus  subscribere.  Robiu- 
son's  Apology,  as  quoted  in  the  Ith  vol.  of  Mosheim,  page  266. 


162  ALEXA.NDER  AND  RUFUS. 

was  not  a  single  article  of  the  public  profession  of  the  church 
of  Holland  which  they  opposed.  With  regard  to  Dr.  Ames,  as  he 
was  a  member  and  minister  of  that  church ;  so  it  is  well  known,  that 
he  was  a  most  cordial  friend,  and  an  able  defender  of  her  public  pro- 
fession. 


DIALOGUE  YII. 

The  separation  of  the  Puritans  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth  from  the  established 
church  of  England — The  ground  of  their  separation  farther  illustrated — The 
declared  design  of  the  meeting  of  the  "Westminster  Assembly— The  Solemn 
League  and  Covenant  inconsistent  with  this  scheme  of  sacramental  commun- 
ion—The Westminster  Confession  designed  to  be  a  bond  of  church  commun- 
ion ;  connected  with  the  Presbyterial  form  of  church  government,  and  con- 
trary to  the  opinions  of  the  Independents — This  scheme  of  catholic  commun- 
ion not  consonant  to  the  26th  chapter  of  that  Confession— Christian  commun- 
ion distinguished  from  church  communion— Of  a  harmony  of  the  Eeformed 
Confessions ;  of  the  Westminster  Assembly's  letter  to  the  Reformed  churches ; 
and  of  a  passage  in  Neal's  History  concerning  the  Anabaptists — Of  a  quota- 
tion from  the  preface  of  a  book  entitled,  Jus  Divinum  ministerii  Evangelic! — 
Of  the  Savoy  Confession — Of  Dr.  Owen's  judgment  concerning  church  com- 
munion—Of  the  sentiments  of  other  divines  on  this  subject. 

Alexander  having  again  paid  Rufus  a  visit,  found  him  in  his 
study  engaged  in  the  persual  of  a  history  of  Great  Britain,-  when  the 
following  conversation  took  place. 

Alex.  So  beautiful  is  the  style  of  Xenophon  and  Livy  that  we  are 
never  weary  of  attending  to  the  details  they  give  us  of  the  affairs  of 
Greece  and  Rome.  But  the  history  of  our  forefathers  in  the  Islands 
of  Britain  is  to  us  more  interesting,  and,  I  may  venture  to  say,  more 
Instructive. 

BuF.  The  history  of  the  Reformation  there  is  peculiarly  so.  Of  the 
nations  that  renounced  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Roman  Pontiff,  there 
were  none  that  attained  more  purity  in  doctrine,  worship  and  govern- 
ment than  Scotland ;  and  scarcely  any  of  them  so  defective  in  these 
respects  as  England.  So  that  in  the  example  of  the  British  churches 
both  the  remorse  or  hindrances  of  the  Reformation,  and  the  true  causes 
of  its  advancement  are  eminently  conspicuous. 

§  48  Alex.  Your  remark  leads  me  to  propose,  that  we  should  now 
pursue  the  subject  of  our  former  conversations.  We  have  enquired, 
whether  the  sacramental  communion  that  obtained  among  the  Reform- 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  ^  163 

ed  churches  on  the  continent  of  Europe  corresponded  with  the  catho- 
lic scheme  of  sacramental  communion  which  is  now  pleaded  for.  Let 
us  now  make  the  same  enquiry  with  regard  to  the  British  churches. 
Even  in  the  early  part  of  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  violent  measures  were 
adopted  in  relation  to  those  who  had  conscientious  objections  to  some 
observances  in  the  establishment.  But  still  the  great  Protestant  prin- 
ciple of  communion  was  not  removed.  Neither  the  civil  nor  the  eccle- 
siastical government  of  England  thought  of  denying  the  lawfulness  and 
the  duty  of  communion  between  the  Protestant  churches,  notwithstand- 
ing their  variations  from  each  other  in  smaller  things. 

The  first  instance,  in  which  one  of  the  Reformed  churches  renounc- 
ed the  fellowship  of  another,  was  in  1634,  when  lord  Scudamore,  in- 
stead of  going  to  the  Protestant  church  at  Charenton,  furnished  his 
chapel  after  the  new  fashion  with  candles  on  the  altar ;  and  took  care 
to  publish  on  all  occasions,  that  the  church  of  England  looked  not  on 
the  Huguenots  as  a  part  of  their  communion.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Puritans  were  not  severed  from  the  Established  Church  by  any  whim, 
or  abuse,  or  corruption,  which  they  were  not  required  to  approve. 
They  grieved,  they  mourned,  they  expostulated  about  things  which 
afflicted  their  consciences ;  but  they  thought  not  of  separation.  Had 
they  not  been  required  to  deny  what  they  believed  to  be  true,  and  to 
profess  what  they  believed  to  be  falsehood ;  had  not  the  price  of  their 
peace  in  the  establishment  been  rated  so  high,  as  the  perjury  of  their 
souls  before  God,  they  had  never  been  separated  from  the  church  of 
England.''' 

RuF.  There  are  degrees  of  separation.  The  Puritans  were  certain- 
ly known,  even  in  the  early  part  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  reign,  as  a  body 
of  ministers  and  people  distinct  from  those  who  defended  and  practised 
several  superstitious  ceremonies  of  the  established  church.  This  ap- 
pears from  a  statute  of  the  13th  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  which  required 
dissenting  teachers,  in  order  to  be  exempted  from  the  penalties  of  other 
statutes,  to  subscribe  such  of  the  39  articles  of  the  established  church 
as  contain  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  the  doctrine  of  the  sacraments, 
those  being  excepted  which  relate  to  the  government  and  the  powers 
of  the  church,  f  Such  subscribers,  though  not  ordained  by  the  Prelates, 
were  admitted  to  officiate,  as  ministers  of  the  church  of  England.  J 
They  were,  however,  considered  as  dissenters. 

About  the  year  15 tl,  when  the  39  articles  were  confirmed  by  an  act 
of  Parliament,  the  Puritans  had  separate  meetings,  and  erected  classes 
or  Presbyteries,  which  met  once  in  six  weeks,  and  a  general  synod, 
which  was  to  meet  once  every  year,  according  to  a  plan  which  Mr. 
Cartwright  and  Mr.  Travers  had  drawn  up ;  a  plan  much  the  same 

*  Plea,  &c.  p.  213,  314,  315, 316    t  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  Book  4,  chap.  4. 
X  Melius  Inquirendum,  page  56. 


164  -  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

with  that  which  was  afterwards  agreed  on  by  the  Westminster  Assem- 
bly. In  the  year  1586,  about  four  hundred  preachers  were  suspended 
or  deposed  who  had  agreed  to  observe  tliis  plan.* 

Thus  it  appears,  that  they  thought  of  separation ;  and  the  reason, 
why  they  thought  of  it,  was  not  because  the  church  of  England,  by 
that  ministerial  authority  which  Christ  has  given  to  the  officers  of  his 
house,  required- as  a  term  of  communion,  an  approbation  of  what  was 
scriptural  in  her  profession,  or  in  her  form  of  worship,  and  govern- 
ment. 

But  they  judged  it  necessary  to  withdraw  from  her  communion  for 
other  reasons,  such  as :  first,  because  the  things  imposed  were  corrup- 
tions :  such  as  the  false  doctrine  of  the  20th  article :  "  That  the  church 
hath  power  to  decree  rites  and  ceremonies ;"  taken  in  connecion  with 
their  use  of  humanly  devised  rites  and  ceremonies  prescribed  in  the 
Liturgy  as  parts  or  means  of  Divine  worship.  They  could  not  consci- 
entiously join  in  such  worship  on  account  of  the  Divine  prohibition  in 
Deut.  xii.  32,  "  What  things  soever  I  commanded  you,  observe  to  do 
it,  thou  shalt  not  add  thereto,  nor  diminish  from  it."  The  Puritans 
could  not  find  that  God  had  ever  commanded  the  things  prescribed  as 
stated  means  of  religious  worship ;  and  they  believed  that  religious 
worship  in  ways  devised  and  commanded  by  men,  was  vain  worship, 
Math.  XV.  9. 

Secondly.  Because  it  is  the  duty  of  the  ministers  and  other  members 
of  every  particular  church  to  endeavor  after  further  reformation :  and, 
therefore,  when  the  majority  of  such  a  church,  instead  of  concurring  in 
such  endeavors,  obstinately  oppposes  them ;  and  when  the  power,  with 
which  Christ  has  vested  the  office-bearers  of  his  church,  cannot  be  ex- 
ercised for  that  end  in  her  communion ;  then  it  becomes  the  duty  of  the 
minority  to  exercise  it  for  carrying  on  reformation,  in  a  separate  soci- 
ety. For,  to  use  the  words  of  a  writer  who  was  well  acquainted  with 
the  principles  and  practice  of  the  Puritans;  "They  said,  if  a  church 
retains  some  corruptions  in  it,  which  prejudice  edification,  and  resolves 
never  to  make  any  alteration  in  her  worship  and  discipline,  nor  to 
make  any  further  progress  in  a  thorough  reformation ;  it  would  be  our 
sin,  not  to  provide  for  ourselves  elsewhere,  or  not  to  take  the  oppor- 
tunity which  Providence  offers,  and  to  do  what  the  word  warrants,  "f 
This  reason  accorded  with  the  views  of  the  first  English  Reformers, 
who  were  sensible,  that  the  form  of  church  government  and  of  public 
worship,  which  they  thought  it  necessary  from  their  circumstances 
to  adopt,  was  not  in  many  respects  such  as  the  word  of  God  re- 
ouired ;  but  they  desired  and  expected,  that  the  reformation  in  Eng- 

*  Brown's  History  of  the  church  of  England,  page  148,  and  149.    Pierce's  Vindi- 
cation, page  90. 

t  Melius  Inquirendum,  page  165. 


ALEXANDER  AND   RUFUS.  165 

land  would  be  carried  on  according  to  the  pattern  of  tlie  other  refor- 
med churches.* 

It  does  not  appear,  that  the  Puritans,  after  they  had  thus  formed 
themselves  into  separate  societies,  had  sacramental  communion  with 
the  zealots  for  the  ceremonies.  The  rules  of  their  discipHne  could  not 
tolerate  those  corruptions  in  their  communion  which  had  caused  their 
separation  from  the  established  church.^  But  in  the  reign  of  Edward 
the  YIth,  and  in  the  beginning  of  Elizabeth 's,  they  acquiesced  in  the 
public  profession  which  was  then  made  by  the  Reformers  in  the  39  ar- 
ticles, hoping  that  the  established  church  would  go  forward  in  refor- 
mation. They  adhered  to  these  articles  as  agreeing  with  the  scripture 
and  as  harmonizing  with  the  other  Confessions  of  the  reformed 
churches  in  non-essentials  as  well  as  essentials  :  and  it  is  of  importance 
to  observe,  that  the  clause  in  the  20th  article  so  offensive  to  the  Puri- 
tans, viz.,  "  The  church  hath  power  to  decree  rites  and  ceremonies,"  is 
not  to  be  found  in  the  authentic  articles  as  agreed  on  in  the  reign  of 
Edward  the  Sixth,  f  So  that  neither  when  the  Puritans  acquiesced  in 
the  order  of  the  establishment,  nor  when  they  separted  from  it,  was  their 
sacramental  communion  any  example  of  the  scheme  of  catholic  com- 
munion now  pleaded  for. 

§  49.  Alex.  The  Puritans  did  not  retire ;  they  were  driven  from 
her  bosom :  and  they  have  thus  left  upon  record  their  testimony  of 
martyrdom  to  the  sacredness  of  that  communion  which  belongs  to  the 
church  of  God,  and  to  the  criminality  of  dividing  it  upon  slight  pre- 
texts. J 

RuF.  The  unwarrantableness  of  the  king's  supremacy  over  spiritual 
causes  and  of  his  usurped  authority,  by  which  he  pretends  to  enjoin  ob- 
servances in  religious  worship  under  civil  penalties,  is  an  argument 
that  has  been  justly  insisted  upon  by  dissenters  from  the  church  of 
England  in  later  times  :  But  it  was  not  much  used  by  any  dissenters, 
exceptmg  the  Brownists,  in  the  reigns  of  Elizabeth  and  James  the  First. 
The  Puritans  seemed  to  own  the  authority  of  the  civil  magistrate,  as 
extending  to  matters  of  religion.  But  they  considered  his  enjoining 
thmgs  in  religion  that  were  not  warranted  by  the  word  of  God,  as  an 
abuse  of  that  authority.  Mr.  Hume  says,  it  may  be  questioned 
whether  the  administration  at  this  time  could  with  propriety  deserve 
the  application  of  persecutors  for  punishing  the  Puritans  in  Elizabeth's 
reign ;  because  a  man  ought  not  to  accept  of  an  office  in  an  establish- 
ment, while  he  declines  compliance  with  the  fixed  and  known  laws  of 
that  establishment.  But  the  laws  with  regard  to  conformists  were  not 
at  first  so  rigid  or  fixed,  as  he  seems  to  suppose.     There  was  no  law 

*  Pierce's  Vindication  of  the  dissenters,  page  11.    M'Crie's  Life  of  John  Knox, 
page  84,  85. 

t  Melius  Inquirendum,  page  137.  X  Plea,  &e.  pages  316, 217. 


166  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

of  the  land  requiring  subscription  till  the  year  1571  ;*  and  the  law  itself 
requiring  the  subscription  of  the  articles,  as  I  already  observed,  allow- 
ed them  to  subscribe,  with  the  exception  of  those  relating  to  the  gov- 
erement  and  powers  of  the  church.  Fenner  says,  ''that  the  ministers 
in  Sussex,  in  their  subscription,  excepted  all  things  in  the  Rubric,  that 
were  not  understood  as  agreeable  to  the  holy  scriptures  or  the  analogy 
of  faith,  as  now  maintained  by  the  church  of  England  ;  and  that  sev- 
eral subscribed  not  the  articles  at  all.  "f 

But  that  it  is  persecution  to  fine,  imprison,  and  put  men  to  death 
for  refusing  to  observe,  under  the  name  of  religion,  ceremonies  which 
God  never  commanded,  cannot  be  doubted  by  any  who  know  what  re- 
ligion is. 

Further,  that  which  induced  the  Puritans  to  decline  the  communion 
of  the  Conformists  was  the  superstitious  cerenionies  themselves  as  be- 
ing contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  and  a  symbolizing  with  the  idolatry 
of  the  Papists;  and  not  merely  the  imposing  of  them  by  civil  authority, 
appears  from  the  beginning  of  the  separation  which  took  place  in  the 
reign  of  Mary  among  the  exiles  at  Frankfort.  Among  them.  Dr.  Cox 
and  his  friends,  having  introduced  the  English  Liturgy,  instead  of  the 
form  of  worship  used  by  the  French  church ;  having  laid  aside  the  dis- 
cipline, which  had  been  agreed  to,  and  having  appointed  a  bishop,  or 
superintendent  over  the  pastors  ;  boasted,  that  they  had  now  the  fonn 
of  an  English  church.  The  consequence  was,  that  a  considerable  num- 
ber of  the  members  left  Frankfort ;  some  of  them,  repairing  to  Basil, 
and  the  greater  :part  to  Geneva,  where  they  obtained  a  place  of  wor- 
ship and  lived  in  great  harmony  and  love,  until  the  death  of  Mary. 
Now  at  Frankfort  there  was  no  enjoining  of  the  use  of  the  Liturgy  and 
ceremonies  by  the  civil  authority,  but  rather  the  contrary  ;  for  thamag- 
istrates  of  Franlrfort  had  issued  an  order,  that  the  congregation  should 
conform  to  the  worship  used  by  the  French  church. '|  If  these  people 
(who  were  the  same  that  were  afterwards  called  Puritans,)  thought  it 
lawful  to  have  sacramental  communion  with  those  who  retained  the 
English  Liturgy  and  ceremonies,  why  did  they  carry  their  opposition 
to  these  peculiarities  so  far  as  to  leave  Frankfort,  that  they  might  enjoy 
the  ordinances  of  God  without  them  ? 

These  people,  who  then  desired  to  have  the  ordinances  of  God  in 
purity,  where  driven  away  from  this  society  at  Frankfort ;  just  as  per- 
sons at  this  day  may  be  constrained  to  come  out  of  any  particular 
church,  when  their  consciences  will  not  suffer  them  to  continue  in  it,  on 

*  Strype's  annals  quoted  by  Pierce  in  his  Vindication,  page  55. 

+  Tenner's  Defence  of  the  godly  ministers,  quoted  by  Pierce  in  his  Vindication, 
page  109. 

X  M'Crie's  life  of  John  Knox,  page  118. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  167 

account  of  corruptions  or  backslidings  openly  avowed  and  obstinately 
persisted  in. 

After  Elizabeth  came  to  the  throne,  when  the  Puritans  saw  Popish 
ceremonies  retained,  godly  ministers  silenced,  and  the  churches  occupied 
by  a  mercenary  generation  who  had  been  voilent  Papists,  they  found, 
that  they  could  not  warrantably  attend  on  such  a  ministry.  A  num- 
ber of  these  people  in  London  apphed  to  Coverdale,  who  had  been 
bishop  of  Exeter,  and  who  hated  the  superstitions  which  the  govern- 
ment thought  fit  to  continue,  desiring  to  know  where  they  might  hear 
him ;  but  he,  afraid  of  offending  government,  declined  mentioning  any 
place  where  he  would  preach.  But,  as  they  resolved  to  have  a  congre- 
gation of  their  own,  they  privately  hired  the  Blumber's  Hall  for  the 
purpose  of  religious  worship.  About  one  hundred  of  them  met  there 
and  used  the  Geneva  service.  But  they  were  discovered  by  the 
sheriff,  and  a  number  of  them  were  taken  and  kept  in  prison  above  a 
year.* 

These  dissenters  were  treated  with  so  much  severity  for  no  other 
reason  than  their  refusing  to  join  in  the  public  worship,  where  the  su- 
perstitious ceremonies  were  used ;  and  for  worshiping  God  according 
to  the  rule  of  his  word  in  a  separate  congregation.  If  they  had  agreed 
to  the  principle,  that  neither  Prelacy  nor  ceremonies  are  any  bar  to 
sacramental  communion,  they  would  not  have  needed  to  form  a  congre- 
gation of  their  own,  nor  to  expose  themselves  to  suffering  on  that  ac- 
count. The  case  now  related  was  not  singular ;  there  were  frequent 
instances  of  the  same  kind. 

.On  the  whole,  it  is  evident,  that  if  prelacy  and  the  Popish  ceremo- 
nies of  the  church  of  England  were  slight  pretexts,  then  a  great  and 
respectable  part  of  the  members  of  that  church  were  divided  from  the 
prevailing  party  on  shght  pretexts.  On  this  supposition,  Sampson, 
Deering,  Gifford,  Cartwright,  and  other  Puritan  ministers,  maintained 
a  testimony  against  the  established  church  on  slight  pretexts;  and 
Aylmer  Whitgift  and  others  are  to  be  commended  for  restraining  them. 
Can  the  most  violent  enemies  of  the  Puritans  say  any  thing  worse  of 
them? 

Alex.  The  church  of  England  continued  in  this  uncomfortable  state; 
the  secular  hierarchy  commanding,  and  the  scriptural  conscience  diso- 
beying and  suffering,  till  that  memorable  epoch  in  the  reign  of  Charles 
I,  the  meeting  of  the  Assembly  of  divines  at  Westminster  in  1643. 
This  Assembly  was  called  for  the  express  purpose  of  reforming  more 
perfectly  the  discipline,  liturgy  and  government  of  the  church ;  so  that 
such  a  government  might  be  settled  in  the  church  as  would  be  most 
agreeable  to  God's  word,  and  most  apt  to  procure,  and  preserve  the 
peace  of  the  church  at  home,  and  nearer  agreement  with  the  church  of 
Scotland,  and  other  Reformed  churches  abroad.     The  Assembly  was 

*  Pierce's  Vindication,  pages  64,  65. 


168  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

originally  composed  of  Presbyterians,  Episcopalians  and  Independents, 
with  commissioners,  both  lay  and  clerical  from  the  church  of  Scotland. 
The  Episcopal  divines  withdrew  at  an  early  period  of  their  discussions, 
viz.,  before  the  introduction  of  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant,  and 
the  number  of  Independents  was  but  small. 

On  the  form  of  church  government  there  was  difference  of  judgment, 
long  and  warm  debate,  and  great  embarrassment.  In  the  body  of  chris- 
tian doctrine  there  was  almost  a  perfect  harmony.  The  Confession, 
as  far  as  it  related  to  articles  of  faith,  passed  the  Assembly  by  a  great 
majority ;  and  was  without  exception  adopted  by  the  church  of  Scot- 
land. The  Independents,  in  1658,  published  a  confession  of  faith,  cal- 
led the  Savoy  Confession,  which  is  for  substance,  the  same  as  the  As- 
sembly's; only  they  omitted  all  those  chapters  in  the  Assembly's  Con- 
fession which  relate  to  discipline ;  as  the  30th  and  31st,  with  part  of  the 
20th  and  24th.  In  the  result,  therefore,  of  the  Westminster  Assem- 
bly's deliberation, —  an  Assembly  not  surpassed  even  by  the  Synod  of 
Dort,  or  the  council  of  Nice, — we  have  the  doctrinal  judgment  of  the 
English  Presbyterians  and  Independents,  and  the  whole  church  of 
Scotland.* 

§  50.  RuF.  The  General  Assembly  of  the  church  of  Scotland,  in 
their  answer  to  the  declaration  of  the  Parliament  of  England,  represen- 
ted "  the  union  of  the  whole  Island  in  one  form  of  church  government, 
one  confession  of  faith,  one  common  catechism,  and  one  directory  for 
the  worship  of  God,"  as  the  design  for  which  the  Westminster  Assem- 
bly was  called. 

Though  this  unformity  is  no  more  than  what  Christ  requires  in  his 
word ;  though  it  is  no  more  than  the  obligation  that  church  membei'S 
are  under  to  adhere  not  only  to  the  principal  or  essential  articles,  but 
to  the  whole  of  the  christian  religion ;  yet  it  is  manifestly  inconsistent 
with  the  catholic  scheme  of  communion  in  question.  For,  according  to 
this  scheme,  a  particular  church  ought  to  receive  into  her  sacramental 
communion  multitudes  without  requiring  of  them  any  assent  to  many 
truths  and  duties,  which  she  herself  acknowledges  to  belong  to  the  chris- 
tian religion ;  or  rather  she  should  suffer  the  most  open  and  obstinate 
contempt  of  truth  and  duty,  if  it  be  what  is  termed  not  essential,  to  pass 
in  her  communicants  without  any  church  censure.  Our  forefathers  ac- 
counted the  open  avowal  of  contrary  opinions  and  practise  in  matters 
of  religion  an  evil  not  to  be  tolerated  in  the  communion  of  the  visible 
church ;  but  to  be  struggled  against,  and  if  possible,  prevented  or  re- 
moved. But  it  is  a  discovery  that  has  been  reserved  for  this  enligh- 
tened age,  that  agreeing  to  differ  as  to  all  points  of  truth  and  duty 
that  are  not  essential,  is  all  the  perfection  which  the  visible  church  is 
to  aim  at  in  respect  of  her  sacramental  communion. 

§  51.  The  people  of  all  ranks  in  Scotland  and  England,  and  par- 

*  Plea,  &c.,  pages  218,  219,  220. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  169 

ticularly  the  parliaments  of  these  kingdoms,  and  the  Westminster  As- 
sembly, engaged  to  promote  and  maintain  this  uniformity  by  entering 
into  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant.  This  Covenant  was  an  en- 
gagement to  endeavor  to  bring  the  churches  of  God  in  the  three  king- 
doms to  the  nearest  conjuction  and  uniformity  in  religion,  confession 
of  faith,  form  of  church  government,  directory  for  worship  and  cate- 
chizing, in  order  that  they  and  their  posterity,  might,  as  brethren,  live 
in  faith  and  love,  and  that  the  Lord  might  delight  to  dwell  in  the  midst 
of  them.  It  was  an  engagement  to  endeavor,  without  respect  of  per- 
sons, the  extirpation  of  popery,  prelacy,  superstition,  schism,  profane- 
ness,  and  whatsoever  should  be  found  to  be  contrary  to  sound  doctrine 
and  the  power  of  godliness,  that  they  might  not  partake  of  other  men's 
sins,  nor  be  in  danger  to  receive  of  their  plagues,  and  that  the  Lord 
might  be  one  and  his  name  one,  in  the  three  kingdoms.  It  was  an 
engagement  against  neutrality  and  indifference  in  the  cause  of  God, 
with  respect  to  all  those  particulars.  It  is  not  necessary  to  understand 
the  word  extirpation,  as  it  stands  in  this  Solemn  Covenant,  of  inflict- 
ing civil  punishment  on  persons  for  errors  or  offences  in  matters  purely 
religious.  Nay,  spiritual  Aveapons  only,  as  presbyterial  government 
and  discipline,  the  pure  preaching  of  the  word,  and  prayer,  are  to  be 
used  according  to  the  design  of  that  covenant  for  rooting  such  errors 
and  offences  out  of  the  church.  But  it  is  necessary  to  understand  this 
covenant  engagement,  with  respect  to  the  particular  churches  that  en- 
tered into  it,  as  binding  them  to  endeavor  to  extirpate  those  evils  by 
the  use  of  spiritual  weapons,  particularly,  by  excluding  from  sacramen- 
tal communion  those  persons  who  were  openly  and  obstinately  ^Dcrsist- 
ing  in  those  evils ;  for  particular  churches  cannot  otherwise  avoid  be- 
ing partakers  of  the  sin  of  such  persons. 

§  52.  Presbyterial  church  government  belonged  to  the  uniformity 
engaged  to  in  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant.  According  to  some 
historians,  this  Covenant  was  so  framed,  by  the  artifice  of  Henry  Yane, 
as  to  disappoint  the  views  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  church  of 
Scotland ;  because  it  contained  no  such  obligation,  as  they  supposed 
it  did,  to  Presbyterial  church  government.  These  writers  say,  that  the 
engagement  to  endeavor  the  reformation  in  England  and  Ireland  in 
doctrine,  worship,  discipline  and  government,  according  to  the  word 
of  God,  and  the  example  of  the  best  reformed  churches,  left  room  for 
the  adopting  of  another  form  of  church  government  than  the  Presbyte- 
rian, such  as.  Independency,  or  Arch-bishop  Usher's  scheme  of  moder- 
ate episcopacy.  But  this  is  very  absurd ;  for  as  it  was  well  known, 
that,  by  the  church  government  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God,  the 
church  of  Scotland  meant  the  Presbyterian ;  so  the  good  faith,  which 
men  ought  to  have  in  all  their  contracts,  especially  in  those  of  a  reli- 
gious nature,  would  not  allow  the  English  to  agree  to  these  words  and 
swear  them,  while  they  understood  them, in  another  sense.  Besides, 
the  English  certainly  engaged  to  receive '''Presbyterial  church  govern- 


170  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

ment,  when  they  not  only  renounced  Prelatical,  but  swore  that  they 
would  endeavor  to  preserve  the  former  in  the  church  of  Scotland,  and, 
at  the  same  time,  to  bring  the  churches  of  England  and  Scotland  to 
the  nearest  conjunction  and  uniformity  in  that  as  well  as  in  other  res- 
pects. 

Further,  it  was  allowed  both  by  the  English  Parliament  at  that  time, 
and  by  the  General  Assembly,  that  the  best  reformed  churches  were 
those  that  had  adopted  the  Presbyterial  form  of  government ;  such  as 
the  Reformed  churches  of  France,  of  Switzerland  and  Holland. 

§  53.  There  are  two  things,  among  others,  in  Presbytery,  inconsist- 
ent with  catholic  or  latitudinarian  communion.  In  the  first  place, 
Presbyterial  church  government  is  a  Divine  institution.  It  is  not 
grounded  on  custom,  on  the  peculiar  genius  or  prevailing  opinion  of 
this  or  the  other  country,  or  in  the  imitation  of  any  form  of  civil  gov- 
ernment ;  but  on  the  authority  and  command  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
The  opinion  that  the  church  of  Christ  has  no  particular  form  of  gov- 
ernment of  his  appointment,  is  highly  dishonoring  to  him,  as  her  Law- 
giver and  King.  It  derogates  also  from  the  perfection  of  the  scrip- 
tures, as  it  supposes  they  do  not  direct  the  church  certainly  or  par- 
ticularly what  officers  she  ought  to  have,  nor  clearly  ascertain  the  duty 
of  these  officers  as  distinct  from  that  of  other  members.  But  the 
doctrine  of  God's  word  on  this  head,  in  opposition  to  Prelacy  and  In- 
dependency, is  sufficiently  set  forth  in  the  form  of  church  govern- 
ment agreed  upon  by  the  Westminster  Assembly.  It  is,  then,  an  ar- 
ticle of  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints ;  it  is  part  of  the  refor- 
mation, which  the  church  has  attained,  that  Presbyterial  church  gov- 
ernment is  to  be  held  as  a  Divine  institution ;  and  that  we  ought, 
therefore,  to  have  no  sacramental  communion  with  any,  while  they 
persist  in  the  sin  and  scandal  of  a  public  and  obstinate  denial  of  it. 
In  the  second  place,  it  is  a  principle  essential  to  presbyterial  church 
government,  that  the  determination  of  presbyterial  courts  agreeable 
to  the  word  of  God  are  to  be  submitted  to,  not  only  for  their  agree- 
ment with  his  word,  but  for  the  authority  by  which  they  are  made, 
as  being  his  ordinance.  Sacramental  communion  with  those  who 
openly  and  obstinately  refuse  such  submission,  is  no  less  con- 
trary to  the  essential  principles  of  presbyterial  church  government, 
than  the  encouragement  of  the  ope-n  and  incorrigible  disobedience  of 
children  would  be  to  the  due  maintenance  of  parental  authority. 

§  54.  I  cordially  agree  with  your  encomium  on  the  Westminster 
Assembly  and  their  Confession ;  but  not  with  the  supposition,  that 
some  part  of  it,  and  not  the  whole,  was  to  be  a  bond  of  church  com- 
munion. That  the  church  of  Scotland  regarded  the  whole  work  in 
this  light  is  evident  from  their  act  approving  it,  in  which  they  declare 
their  judgment,  that  this  Confession  being  found  by  the  Assembly 
upon  due  examination,  to  be  most  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God,  and 
to  the  received  doctrine,  worship,  discipline  and  government  of  that 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  171 

church,  should  be  approved  and  established  in  both  kingdoms  as  a 
principal  part  of  that  uniformity  in  religion,  which,  by  the  Solemn 
League  and  Covenant,  they  were  bound  to  promote ;  an  uniformity 
in  all  the  parts  of  this  Confession ;  an  uniformity  in  worship  and  disci- 
pline, as  well  as  in  doctrine.  It  was  also  received,  as  a  special  means 
of  the  more  effectual  suppression  of  the  many  dangerous  errors  and 
heresies  of  those  times.  The  errors  here  meant  must  be  understood 
as  including  all  such  as  were  contrary  to  the  uniformity  engaged  to 
in  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant.  It  is  obvious,  that  the  Con- 
fession thus  adopted  by  the  church  of  Scotland,  could  not  answer 
these  ends,  if  she  allowed  any  article  of  it  to  be  openly  and 
obstinately  rejected  by  those  whom  she  admitted  to  sacramental  com- 
munion. 

With  regard  to  the  limitations  added  in  this  act,  they  tend  to  con- 
firm this  position,  that  the  whole  Confession  was  considered  as  the 
bond  of  church  communion  ;  for  these  limitations  suppose,  that  the 
Assembly  reckoned,  that,  if  there  had  been  any  article  in  the  Confes- 
sion, of  which  no  approbation  was  to  be  required  of  church  members, 
it  would  not  have  been  necessary  to  except  that  article  ;  for  these 
limitations  show  how  solicitous  the  Assembly  was  to  remove  whatever 
might  occasion  scruples,  or  hinder  the  sincere  and  intelligent  appro- 
bation of  any  part  whatever  of  the  Confession. 

§  55.  The  divines  appointed  by  the  Parliament  to  compose  the  As- 
sembly at  Westminster,  were  Episcopalians,  as  well  as  Presbyterians 
and  Independents.  But  the  Episcopalians  either  did  not  attend  the 
Assembly  at  all,  or  left  it  in  a  short  time  after  it  met,  on  account  of 
the  king's  prohibition  of  it.  Mr.  Baillie,  a  judicious  and  respectable 
member  of  the  Assembly,  in  a  letter  written  concerning  it  some  months 
before  the  Confession  was  under  consideration,  says,  "  There  is  no 
man  here  to  speak  a  word  for  bishops,  or  liturgy,  or  any  ceremony.* 
The  Independents,  who  were  but  few,  continued  some  attendance  ; 
though  they  were  the  most  part  of  the  time  absent.  But,  as  they  ob- 
stinately opposed  the  form  of  church  government  agreed  on  by  the 
Assembly,  it  was  found  meet,"  says  Mr.  Baillie,  "  to  put  them  to  de- 
clare their  mind  positively,  what  they  would  be  at."  In  another  let- 
ter he  says,  "  We  have  been  long  in  the  expectation  of  a  model  "  (of 
church  government)  "  from  the  Independents  ;  but  yesterday,  after 
seven  months'  waiting,  they  have  scorned  us.  The  Assembly  having 
put  them  to  it,  to  make  a  report  of  their  diligence,  they  gave  us  a 
sheet  or  two  of  injurious  reasons,  why  they  would  not  give  us  any 
reasons  of  their  tenets.  We  have  appointed  a  committee  to  answer 
that  libel.  We  think  they  agree  not  among  themselves."t  In  short, 
the  Assembly  carried  their  opposition  to  the  Independents  too  far,  in 
refusing  that  they  should  be  allowed  by  the  civil  magistrate  to  have 

*  Bailie's  Letters  and  Journals  vol.  ii.  p.  24.    t  Ibid,  page  160. 


172  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

separate  congregations.  This,  however,  did  not  proceed  from  their 
entertaining  the  opinion  of  our  advocates  for  catholic  communion 
about  the  unlawfulness  of  withdrawing  in  any  case  from  a  particular 
church,  that  holds  the  essentials  of  the  christian  religion ;  but  from 
the  high  notions  which  they  had  formed  of  the  authority  of  the  civil 
magistrate  to  restrain  the  profession  of  false  religion,  and  to  establish 
that  of  the  true.  But  though  they  erred  in  this  respect,  it  does  not 
follow  that  they  erred  in  respect  to  church  communion  ;  especially  by 
going  into  the  extreme  of  laxness.  If  they  would  not  tolerate  Inde- 
pendency in  the  state,  they  would  much  less  tolerate  it  in  the  com- 
munion of  the  church  of  Christ.  It  did  not  interfere  with  civil  gov- 
ernment ;  but  it  evidently,  in  a  great  measure,  excluded  the  only  form 
of  government  which  Christ  has  appointed  in  his  church.  Nor  can 
it  be  concluded,  that  the  Presbyterians  were  for  continuing  in  churcli 
communion  with  the  Independents,  from  their  sitting  with  them  in  the 
Assembly  ;  for  this  Assembly  was  no  proper  judicature  of  an  organ- 
ized church  :  but  rather,  as  Mr.  Baillie  says,  a  meeting  called  by  Par- 
liament to  advise  them  in  what  things  they  were  asked.*  Nay,  the 
supposition,  that  they  favored  what  is  now  termed  catholic  commu- 
nion, is  contrary  to  the  design  of  their  dealing  and  reasoning  so  long 
with  these  brethren  :  which  design  was  to  remove  Independency,  as 
what  they  found  inconsistent  with  regular  and  comfortable  sacramen- 
tal communion.  Mr.  Baillie  tells  us  in  one  of  his  letters,  that  Mr. 
Thomas  Goodwin,  one  of  the  most  eminent  of  the  Independent  min- 
isters, excited  great  prejudice  against  himself  and  his  party  in  the  As- 
sembly, by  declaring  publicly,  (what  is  held  by  every  abettor  of  the 
catholic  communion  now  pleaded  for,)  "  That  he  could  not  refuse  any 
to  be  members,  nor  subject  them  to  any  censure,  when  members,  for 
Ana-baptism,  Lutheranism,  or  any  errors  which  are  not  fundamental, 
nor  maintained  against  knowledge.''  "  This  ingenious  and  most  tim- 
eous,  although  merely  accidental,  profession,"  says  Mr.  Baillie,  "  has 
much  allayed  the  favor  of  some  to  tlieir  toleration."f 

It  may  be  added,  that  when  the  church  of  Scotland  renewed  the 
Solemn  League  and  Covenant  in  the  year  1648^  Independency  is  first 
mentioned  in  a  catalogue  of  the  national  sins,  against  which  they  en- 
gaged to  contend  and  testify,  as  contrary  to  their  covenanted  uni- 
formity, and  the  purity  of  religion  ;  and  therefore,  it  is  not  suppos- 
able,  that  the  church  of  Scotland  would  admit  to  sacramental  com- 
munion, such  as  avowed  their  obstinate  persisting  in  this  evil. 

§  56.  Alex.  Let  us  view  the  second  section  of  the  twenty-sixth 
chapter  of  the  Westminster  Confession,  which  describes  the  com- 
munion which  ought  to  subsist  between  professed  christians^  in  their 

*  Bailie's  Letters  and  Journals,  vol.  ii.  page  20. 

+  Bailie's  Letters,  vol.  ii,  page  173. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  173 

relation  to  each  other,  as  visible  members  of  the  church  of  God.  The 
parties  are  saints  by  profession  ;  that  is,  those  who  make  a  credible 
profession  of  religion  ;  whom,  according  to  the  rules  of  scriptural 
judgment,  we  are  to  acknowledge  as  fellow-christians.  The  communion 
which  they  are  to  cherish  with  each  other,  is  defined  in  its  nature,  its 
extent,  and  in  the  principles  of  its  application.  As  to  its  nature,  it 
consists  in  a  communion  in  the  worship  of  God ;  that  is,  in  his  insti- 
tuted ordinances  in  his  church ;  in  acts  of  religious  good  will,  which, 
though  they  fall  not  within  the  worship  of  God,  are  yet  such  spiritual 
services  as  tend  to  their  mutual  edification  ;  and  also,  in  relieving 
each  other  in  outward  things,  according  to  their  several  abilities  and 
necessities.  As  to  the  extent  of  their  communion,  in  all  its  branches, 
it  is  to  embrace  christians,  as  such,  of  every  denomination^  even  all 
who  call  upon  the  Lord  Jesus,  of  every  country  or  clime,  even  all 
who  in  every  place  call  on  him.  This  communion,  in  all  its  extent, 
is  a  duty  which  they  are  not  at  liberty  to  forego  ;  they  are  bound  to 
maintain  this  communion. 

The  application  of  this  doctrine  is  to  be  regulated  by  providential 
circumstances,  as  God  oflfereth  opportunity.  When  he,  in  his  Provi- 
dence, fairly  puts  it  in  your  way,  you  are  not  to  shun  to  accept  such 
an  opportunity  of  testifying  your  love  to  his  people,  by  joining  with 
them  in  the  ordinances  dispensed  among  them,  or  welcoming  them  to 
the  ordinances  dispensed  among  yourselves. 

The  churches,  then,  which  have  adopted  the  Westminster  Confes- 
sion, have  decided  in  favor  of  a  communion  as  catholic  and  generous, 
as  that  of  the  apostolic,  and  primitive,  and  protestaut  ages.  Nothing 
remains  for  them,  but  to  show,  by  their  example,  that  ihey  believe 
their  own  doctrine  ;  that  the  profession  which  they  are  in  the  habit 
of  making  to  God  and  to  men,  is  a  fair  exhibition  of  their  principles.* 

RuF.  I  cordially  agree  to  all  you  have  now  said  of  this  chapter  of 
the  Confession,  excepting  that,  when  you  say,  the  extent  of  it  em- 
braces christians,  as  such,  of  every  denomination.  If  you  mean  join- 
ing in  sacramental  communion  with  those  bearing  the  christian  name, 
of  all  professions,  however  corrupt ;  with  Papists,  Arminians,  Ana- 
baptists, and  Episcopalians,  without  requiring  any  acknowledgment 
of  their  errors^  such  a  construction  is  equally  inconsistent  with  the 
true  meaning  of  the  article,  with  the  well  known  principles  of  the 
Westminster  Assembly,  and  with  the  explanation  you  yourself  gave, 
in  a  former  conversation,  of  this  expression,  "  Those  that  call  on  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  The  communion  treated  of,  in  this  chap- 
ter of  the  Confession,  takes  place,  in  various  degrees,  as  Providence 
affords  opportunity.  There  is  one  degree  of  it,  in  the  relief  that 
christians  afford  one  another  in  outward  things;  another,  in  perform- 
ing spiritual  services,  tending  to  their  mutual  edification ;  as  in  min- 

*  Plea.  &c.  pages  222,  223,  221 


174  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

istering  privately  to  the  instruction  and  consolation  of  each  other ; 
a  third,  in  private  religious  worship ;  as  in  families ;  a  fourth,  in 
public  ordinances  ;  particularly  in  the  sacraments.  We  may  have 
communion  in  the  former  degrees  with  many,  with  whom  it  would  be 
unwarrantable  to  have  it  in  the  last  degree.  The  Israelites  might 
have  communion  with  pious  strangers,  that  were  not  circumcised,  in 
almsgiving  and  prayer  ;  but  not  in  eating  the  passover.  There  is  a 
Divinely  appointed  order,  according  to  which  we  are  to  seek  sacra- 
mental communion  ;  and  if  it  cannot  be  obtained,  according  to  that  or- 
der, Divine  Providence  does  not  put  it  fairly  in  our  way.  For  com- 
munion with  the  avowed  and  obstinate  opposers  of  what  we  justly 
consider  as  belonging  to  the  cause  of  Christ,  or  to  our  scriptural  pro- 
fession, would  not  be  that  holy  fellowship  and  communion  in  the  wor- 
ship of  God  which,  according  to  the  Confession,  we  are  bound  to 
maintain  :  nor  would  it  be  a  communion  with  such  as  duly  support 
the  character  of  those  that  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

The  communion  in  the  worship  of  God  which,  according  to  the 
chapter  of  the  Confession,  we  are  bound  to  maintain  is,  as  you  have 
justly  observed,  a  communion  in  his  instituted  ordinances,  and  in  them 
exclusively  of  all  human  devices  in  the  worship  of  God,  or  in  the 
government  of  the  church.  Hence,  according  to  this  principle,  we 
cannot  warrantably  have  communion  in  the  public  worship  of  God, 
particularly  sacramental  commuion,  with  those  who  are  open  enemies 
to  the  form  of  worship  and  of  church  government,  which  are  of  Di- 
vine institution ;  and  who  avow  their  obstinate  attachment  to  prelacy 
and  superstitious  rites  in  religious  worship. 

Further,  the  comprehension  of  this  communion  is  to  be  attended 
to,  as  well  as  the  extent  of  it.  "  Saints  by  profession  are  bound  to 
maintain  a  holy  fellowship  "  in  the  whole  matter  of  their  profession  ; 
in  public  and  private  duties  ;  in  receiving,  observing,  keeping  pure 
and  entire  all  such  worship  and  ordinances  as  God  hath  appointed  in 
his  word.  Such  a  comprehensive  profession,  though  not  necessary  to 
lower  degrees  of  this  communion,  as  in  relieving  temporal  necessi- 
ties, and  other  services,  is  always  implied  in  sacramental  communion. 
For  our  participation  of  the  sacramental  ordinance  necessarily  implies 
that  all  who  partake  with  us  make  the  same  public  profession  of  the 
christian  religion  ;  that  profession  being  precisely  the  matter  in  which 
we  have  communion  in  the  Lord's  supper.  We  are,  indeed,  to  declare 
our  willingness  to  have  sacramental  communion  with  all  that  profess 
to  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  But  we  cannot  warrantably 
have  sacramental  communion  with  them,  on  their  professing  to  agree 
to  some  things  ;  while  they  openly  and  obstinately  reject  other 
things,  which  we  justly  profess,  as  belonging  to  the  christian  religion. 
The  cause,  then,  of  their  not  having  sacramental  communion  with  us, 
is  not  our  debarring  them  from  it,  but  rather,  their  refusing  to  accept 
of  it.     We  cannot  give  them  a  dispensation  to  despise  and  reject  this 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  175 

and  the  other  article  of  Christianity,  specified  in  our  public  profes- 
sion ;  and  without  this  dispensation,  they  tell  us,  they  will  not  com- 
municate with  us.  In  this  case,  we  are  persuaded,  that  God  is  say- 
ing to  us  from  heaven,  "  Let  them  return  unto  you  ;  but  return  not 
ye  unto  them.' 

What  is  now  said  of  the  comprehension  of  this  communion,  is  agree- 
able to  the  Scriptures  quoted  by  the  Assembly,  Heb.  x.  24.  25  :  '•'  And 
let  us  consider  one  another,  to  provoke  unto  love  and  good  works : 
not  forsaking  the  assembling  of  ourselves  together,  as  the  manner  of 
some  is."  Here  the  apostle  is  speaking  of  the  communion  of  the 
members  of  the  same  church  making  the  same  public  profession. 
The  connection  of  this  exhortation  with  that  in  the  23d  verse  leads 
us  to  conclude,  that  those,  with  whom  the  apostle  would  have  the 
Hebrews  to  associate,  were  not  persons  who  denied  any  article  of 
their  christian  profession ;  because  communion  with  such  was  likely 
to  be  an  occasion  of  that  wavering,,  which  the  apostle  here  prohibits, 
with  regard  to  every  article  of  their  profession,  however  non-essential 
it  might  be  reckoned.  He  certainly  considered  profession  as  in  dan- 
ger from  the  communications  of  such  persons,  1  Corinth,  xv.  33. 
Another  of  these  texts  gives  us  an  account  of  the  practice  of  the 
primitive  christians,  Acts  ii.  42  :  ''  They  continued  steadfastly  in  the 
apostle's  doctrine  and  fellowship ;  and  in  the  breaking  of  bread,  and 
in  prayer."  According  to  these  words,  they  with  whom  the  first 
christians  had  sacramental  fellowship,  were  such  as  continued  in  the 
apostle's  doctrine,  not  only  in  some  essential  parts  of  it,  but  in  the 
whole  of  it.  The  other  texts  refer  to  that  sort  of  fellowship,  which 
lies  in  relieving  the  necessities  of  the  poor ;  about  which  there  is  no 
controversy. 

The  advocates  for  what  is  called  catholic  communion  often  speak 
as  if  these  words  of  the  Confession,  "  Which  communion  is  to  be  ex- 
tended to  all  those,  who  in  every  place  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,"  were  to  be  understood  without  any  limitation,  of  all  who  pro- 
fess to  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  Thus,  they  represent  the 
Westminstsr  Assembly  as  teaching  us,  that  we  are  bound  to  have 
sacramental  communion  with  Arians,  Socinians,  and  other  gross  here- 
tics ;  because  they  all,  in  their  several  ways,  call  on  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus.  This  is  a  gross  abuse  of  the  character  and  meaning  of 
that  Assembly.  We  cannot  do  justice  to  this  passage  of  the  Confes- 
sion, unless  we  understand  the  phrase,  "  Calling  on  the. name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus,"  in  the  scripture  sense.  It  is  often  used  to  denote  invo- 
cation and  prayer.  But  1  Corinth,  i.  2,  and  in  some  other  places,  it 
is  descriptive  of  the  character  of  persons,  who  profess  a  cordial  and 
firm  adherence  to  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ ;  that  is,  to  the  whole 
display  that  he  has  made  of  himself  in  his  truths  and  institutions. 
Hence,  a  particular  church  may  justly  decline  sacramental  commun- 
ion with  such  as  openly  and  obstinately  deny  any  of  the  truths  or  in- 


176  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

stitutions  of  Jesus  Christ;  as,  in  respect  of  that  denial,  they  are 
deviating  from  the  character  of  those  who  call  on  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus. 

§  57.  Alex.  The  opposers  of  catholic  communion  distinguish  be- 
tween church  communion  and  the  communion  of  saints ;  or  as  they 
sometimes  express  it,  christian  communion.  By  the  first,  they  under- 
stand communion  with  a  church  in  her  social  character ;  as  organized 
under  a  particular  form  of  doctrine,  worship  and  government.  By  the 
second,  they  understand  that  communion  which  subsists  between 
christians  as  individuals  simply,  without  reference  to  their  church  com- 
munion at  all.  This  distinction  seems  to  be  erroneous  and  hurtful. 
It  is  indeed  somewhat  extraordinary,  that  the  communion  of  a  church 
made  up  of  visible  saints,  of  christians,  should  not  be  the  communion 
of  saints  ;  and  that  the  confession  of  faith,  which  treats  professedly  of 
the  church  of  God,  should  not  contain  one  syllable  on  that  momen- 
tous topic,  her  communion.  The  little  compend,  commonly  called  the 
Creed  of  the  Apostles,  was  current  in  the  christian  world  without  the 
clause,  communion  of  saints,  until  the  end  of  the  fourth,  or  the  be- 
ginning of  the  fifth  century.  It  was  then  inserted,  in  order  to  main- 
tain the  principle  of  the  union  and  communion  of  the  Catholic  church, 
against  the  schismatical  doctrine  and  conduct  of  the  Donatists.  Thus 
it  is  clear,  that  the  phrase,  communion  of  saints,  was  originally  so 
far  from  signifying  what  is  now  called  christian  communion  in  oppo- 
sition to  church  communion,  that  it  signified  exactly  or  nearly  the 
reverse :  that  is,  it  not  only  comprehended,  but  strictly  and  properly 
expressed,  and  was  put  into  the  creed  for  the  purpose  of  expressing, 
church  communion. 

In  this  sense,  it  was  handed  down  to  posterity,  and  understood  at 
the  Reformation ;  as  might  be  shown,  by  adducing  passages  fi'om  the 
Helvetian  Confession,  the  Confession  of  Basil,  the  Strasburgh  Confes- 
sion, the  Bohemian  Confession ;  and  from  the  writings  of  celel^rated 
divines,  such  as  Calvin,  Davenant,  Usher,  Baxter.  Even  the  excellent 
John  Brown  of  Haddington,  speaking  of  the  Seceders,  who  left  their 
parishes  in  the  established  church  of  Scotland,  says,  "  In  vain  you  told 
them,  that  their  withdrawment  was  a  breaking  up  of  the  communion 
of  saints.  They  challenge  you  to  prove,  that  the  obedience  of  Luther 
and  Calvin  to  the  call  of  Grod,  to  leave  the  church  of  Rome,  amoun- 
ted to  a  breaking  up  of  the  communion  of  saints. ''  But  the  commun- 
ion, from  which  Luther  and  Calvin  withdrew,  was  certainly  church 
communion:  therefore,  Mr.  Brown  himself  being  judge,  church  com- 
munion is  the  communion  of  saints.  "^ 

RuF.  The  proposition,  that  church  communion  or  sacramental 
communion  may  be  called  eminently  the  communion  of  saints,  was 
never  denied,  I  suppose,  by  any  who  regard  the  Lord's  supper  as  his 

*  Plea,  &c.  pages  225—246. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  177 

ordinance,  excepting  by  some  very  extravagant  writers  in  defence  of 
the  Romish  church,  who  have  represented  the  church  as  a  society, 
which  is  constituted  and  supported  on  principles  of  carnal  policy  ;  and 
which,  according  to  these  principles,  might  subsist  without  any  real 
saints  at  all.  But  though  all  church  or  sacramental  communion,  which 
is  according  to  the  word  of  God,  belongs  to  the  communion  of  saints, 
it  does  not  follow,  that  there  is  no  communion  of  saints  or  of  chris- 
tains,  but  what  is  properly  termed  church  communion.  It  seems 
neither  agreeable  to  scripture  nor  reason,  to  assert,  that  there  is  no 
communion  of  saints  in  that  prayer  and  that  spiritual  conference,  which 
are  often  necessary,  in  order  to  our  attaining  a  judgment  of  charity, 
concerning  persons,  that  they  are  saints ;  and  therefore  necessary,  in 
order  to  our  church  or  sacramental  communion  with  them.  Philip 
and  the  Ethiopian  Eunuch  had  christian  communion  before  Philip 
proposed  the  terms  upon  which  the  Eunuch  was  to  be  admitted  lo 
{)aptism.  But,  before  those  terms  were  proposed  and  agreed  to,  it 
could  not  be  said  with  propriety,  that  there  was  church  communion 
between  them.  It  is  evident  that  the  Westminster  Assembly,  in  the 
chapter  of  which  we  have  been  speaking,  do  not  limit  the  communion 
of  saints  to  church  or  sacramental  communion.  They  speak  in  gen- 
eral terms  of  the  duties,  both  public  and  private,  belonging  to  this 
communion ;  and  of  the  obligation  that  saints  are  under  to  these  du- 
ties :  first,  from  their  union  to  Christ ;  and  secondly,  from  their  pro- 
fession. It  will  not  be  asserted,  by  any  considerate  person,  that  the 
saints  have  no  communion  with  one  another,  in  the  worship  of  God, 
and  in  other  spiritual  services  :  no  communion  in  relieving  each  other 
in  their  straits  and  afiiictions,  while  they  are  not  admitted  to  sacra- 
mental commmunion,  or  while  they  are  justly  under  church  censure. 
It  is  not  denied,  that  according  to  our  Confession,  church  or  sacra- 
mental communion,  is  to  be  extended  to  all  who  call  on  the  name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus ;  that  is,  who  are  willing  to  make  that  profession  of 
his  name,  of  his  truths  and  ordinances,  which  the  church  warrantably 
requires  according  to  his  word.  This  is  taught  here  by  the  Assem- 
bly, in  opposition  to  the  Novatians,  Donatists  and  Brownists,  who  ex- 
cluded all  from  their  fellowship  that  had  not  given  positive  proofs  of 
their  regeneration.  They  also  teach  that  church  members  in  differ- 
ent and  distinct  parts  of  the  world,  have  communion  with  one  another 
in  maintaining  the  same  profession  of  the  Faith,  the  same  worship 
and  order,  according  to  the  word  of  God.  We  have  no  local  pecu- 
liarities in  our  religion.  But  with  respect  to  the  particular  order,  ac- 
cording to  which  the  Westminster  Assembly  judged  that  church  com- 
munion ought  to  be  regulated,  it  is  to  be  learned  from  their  chapter 
on  church  censures,  from  their  form  of  Presbyterial  church  govern- 
ment, and  from  their  Directory  for  public  worship ;  an  order  which 
can  never  be  reconciled  to  that  latitudinarian  communion,  which  is 
the  great  idol  pf  the  present  generation. 


178  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

With  regard  to  the  passages  of  the  public  confessions,  and  of  the 
writings  of  the  divines  to  which  you  refer,  it  is  unnecessary  to  enter 
into  a  particular  consideration  of  them.  It  is  sufficient  to  observe, 
that  the  design  of  these  passages  is  to  assert  the  communion  of  all 
saints,  as  members  of  the  catholic  church ;  and  that  that  communion 
is  eminently  declared  and  enjoyed  in  their  participation  of  the  Lord's 
supper ;  positions,  which  those  who  oppose  this  scheme  of  catholic 
communion,  are  very  far  from  calling  in  question.  It  is  obvious,  that 
these  passages  cannot  have  any  bearing  upon  the  point  in  question, 
but,  on  the  supposition,  that  the  act  of  declining  the  sacramental 
communion  of  any  partijCular  church,  is  in  itself,  or  without  any  con- 
sideration of  the  grounds  of  it,  a  declining  of  the  communion  of  the 
catholic  church :  an  absurd  supposition,  of  which  enough  has  been 
said  already. 

§  58.  Alex.  There  had  been  published,  by  the  joint  authority  of 
the  French  and  Dutch  churches,  a  Harmony  of  the  Reformed  Confes- 
sions, digested  under  distinct  heads :  so  that  whatever  is  contained  in 
the  several  Confessions  on  any  one  subject,  was  gathered  into  one  chap- 
ter of  the  Harmony.  And  it  was  compiled  for  the  very  end  of  show- 
ing to  the  world  the  concord  of  Protestants,  not  excepting  the  Lu- 
therans, in  all  matters  which  ought  to  form  the  bond  of  union  and 
communion  ;  and  thus  to  repel  the.  reproach  of  the  Papists,  that  they 
were  separated  from  each  other  as  much  as  from  Rome.  This  book  was 
translated  into  English  and  published  in  London,  1643,  during  the 
sitting  of  the  Westminster  Assembly ;  and  not  only  so,  but  allowed 
by  public  authority.-  This  public  authority,  was  lodged  by  Parliament 
in  June  1643^  for  the  department  of  Theology,  in  the  hands  of  twelve 
divines,  seven  of  whom  were  members  of  the  Assembly  :  who  would 
not  have  licensed  a  book  containing  any  thing  materially  at  variance 
with  an  important  doctrine  as  received  by  themselves.  The  Assem- 
bly itself,  in  an  official  letter  of  Nov.  30th.  1643,  to  the  Belgick, 
French,  Helvetian  and  other  Reformed  churches ;  styling  them,  "  right 
reverend  and  dearly  beloved  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  our  much  hon- 
ored brethren;"  subscribed  by  the  commissioners  of  the  church  of  h'cot- 
land,  among  whom  were  the  ever  famous  and  venerable  Samuel  Ruth- 
erford and  George  Gillespie;  stating,  that  the  object  of  the  Assembly 
was  to  commend  to  our  Zerubbabels,  the  political  rulers,  such  a  plat- 
form, as  may  be  most  agreeable  to  God's  sacred  word,  nearest  in  con- 
formity to  the  best  reformed  churches,  and  to  establish  unity  among 
ourselves.  That  the  Westminster  Assembly  and  the  evangelic  inter- 
est generally  were  desirous  of  bottoming  the  communion  of  the  church 
upon  the  broad  foundation  of  the  common  faith,  without  regard  to 
minor  differences,  is  one  of  the  most  incontrovertible  facts  in  ecclesi- 
astical history.  To  the  proofs  already  produced  I  shall  add  some 
more  out  of  a  multitude.  The  first  I  produce  is,  that  Mr.  Neal,  in 
his  history  of  the  Puritans,  tells  us,  that  the  English  Anabaptists  in 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  179 

1644,  were  more  exposed  to  the  public  resentment,  because  they  would 
hold  communion  with  none  but  such  as  had  been  dipped.  This  shows, 
that,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Calvinistic  churches  at  that  time,  neither  dif- 
ference in  the  government  of  the  church,  nor  as  to  the  subjects  and 
mode  of  baptism,  were  valid  reasons  for  breaking  up  communion :  aud 
therefore  error  either  in  respect  of  the  subjects  and  mode  of  baptism 
was  then  reckoned  less  blameable  in  itself,  than  the  refusing  of  sac- 
ramental communion  on  account  of  it.* 

RuF.  Permit  me,  Alexander,  to  offer  some  remarks  upon  your  quo- 
tations as  you  go  along.  It  has  been  already  shown,  that  the  ground, 
which  the  Confessions  of  the  Reformed  churches  afforded  them  for  sac- 
ramental communion  with  one  another,  was  net  such  a  harmony,  as 
latitudinarians  suppose  to  have  been  the  ground  of  their  communion  : 
that  is,  a  harmony  in  some  parts  only  of  Christianity,  which  ar^^  reck- 
oned essential ;  but  a  harmony  as  to  the  subjects  and  mode  of  bap- 
tism, and  in  a  great  measure  as  to  church  government,  and  other 
points,  not  reckoned  essential;  a  harmony  according  to  all  that  they 
had  attained.  There  was  no  opposition  stated  in  the  Confession  of 
any  one  of  these  churches,  even  as  to  minor  truths  or  duties  really  con- 
tained in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  exhibited  in  the  public  profession 
of  any  other  of  them.  The  foundation  of  their  sacramental  commun- 
ion with  one  another  was  far  broader  than  that  of  latitudinarian  com- 
munion. The  truth  of  this  observation  is  much  confirmed  by  the  As- 
sembly's letter  to  the  Reformed  Churches  on  the  continent;  since  the 
platform  recommended  in  that  letter  is  no  other  than  the  whole  Con- 
fession, the  whole  form  of  church  government,  and  the  whole  directory 
for  public  worship,  which  the  Assembly  afterwards  exhibited.  As  to 
the  passage  of  Neal  about  the  Anabaptists,  it  seems  to  be  of  little  con- 
sequence. What  are  we  to  understand  by  the  public  resentment  ?  It 
might  be  the  resentment  of  some  other  erroneous  sects,  such  as  the  An- 
tinomians  and  Libertines.  It  does  not  appear,  that  they  who  consid- 
ered exclusion  from  the  communion  of  the  Anabaptists  as  worse  than 
their  en'ors  about  the  subjects  and  mode  of  baptisui,  were  members  of 
the  Westminster  Assembly  or  Presbyterians.  Mr.  Bailie  in  his  letters, 
speaking  of  the  Independents,  says,  "  the  most  of  their  party  are  fallen 
off  to  Anabaptism,  Antinomianism,  and  Socinianism.  "f  In  another 
letter,  *' We  hope  shortly  to  get  the  Independents  to  declare  themselves 
either  to  be  for  the  rest  of  the  sectaries,  or  against  them.  If  they 
declare  against  them,  they  will  be  but  a  small  inconsiderable  compa- 
ny ;  if  for  them,  all  honest  men  will  cry  out  upon  them  for  separating 
from  all  the  Reformed  churches  to  join  with  Anabaptists  and  Liber- 
tines. "J  In  another  he  says,  "  Sundry  officers  and  elders  are  fallen 
from  the  Independent  way  to  Antinomianism  and  Anabaptism. "     It 

*  Plea,  &c.  pages  251—256. 

tBailie's  letters,  vol.  2,  page  24.  X  Ibid,  143, 


180  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

is,  indeed,  well  known,  that  the  Anabaptists  at  that  time  were  far 
more  remarkable  for  their  gross  errors,  than  they  are  at  present. 
These  errors,  and  not  their  excluding  others  from  their  sacramental 
communion,  excited  the  resentment  of  Presbyterians  against  them. 
Hence  Mr.  Bailie  ranks  them  with  the  Antinomians  and  Socinians. 
Hence  he  represents  the  Independents  as  in  danger  of  bringing  an 
odium  upon  themselves  by  taking  such  steps  as  would  lead  them  rather 
to  join  with  the  Anabaptists  than  with  the  Reformed  churches.  Mr. 
Bailie,  as  I  formerly  observed,  writes,  that  Dr.  Goodwin  exposed  him- 
self to  the  public  resentment  by  the  laxness  of  an  opinion  he  expressed 
concerning  church  communion.  On  the  contrary,  Mr.  Neal  relates, 
that  the  Anabaptists  exposed  themselves  to  the  same  resentment  by 
their  strictness.  If  the  resentment  meant  be  that  of  the  members  of 
the  Westminster  Assembly  or  of  the  Presbyterians,  it  is  surely  neces- 
sary to  prefer  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Bailie  who  was  a  member  of  the 
Assembly,  with  regard  to  what  was  the  prevailing  sentiment  on  church 
communion  at  that  time. 

§  59.  Alex.  The  second  proof  I  offer  is  from  a  book  published  by 
the  i^rovincial  synod  of  London  in  1654,  five  years  after  the  termina- 
tion of  the  Assembly,  entitled  "Jus  Divinum  Ministerii  EvangeKci;" 
or  the  Divine  Right  of  the  Gospel  Ministry.  The  ministerial  portion 
of  the  committee  of  that  synod,  at  its  first  meeting  in  164t,  were  all 
members  of  the  Westminster  Assembly.  One  of  them,  Mr.  Jeremiah 
Whitaker,  had  a  chief  hand  in  composing  their  work.  It  is,  there- 
fore, reasonable  to  conclude,  that  they  not  only  knew,  but  expressed 
the  sentiments  of  the  Westminster  Divines.  In  their  preface,  speak- 
ing of  the  different  sorts  of  men,  whom  they  then  had  to  deal  with, 
they  say,  to  use  their  own  words :  "  A  fifth  sort  are  our  reverend 
brethren  of  New  and  Old  England  of  the  congregational  way,  who 
hold  our^ehurches  to  be  true  churches  ;  though  they  differ  from  us  in 
some  lesser  things.  But  we  profess,  that  this  disagreement  shall  not 
hinder  us  from  any  christian  accord  with  them  in  affection  ;  and  that 
we  shall  be  willing  to  entertain  any  sincere  motion  that  shall  further 
a  happy  accommodation  between  us.  The  last  sort  are  the  moderate, 
Godly  Espiscopal  men,  that  hold  ordination  by  Presbyters  to  be  law- 
ful and  valid ;  and  that  a  bishop  and  presbyter  are  one  and  the  same 
order  of  ministry ;  and  yet  hold,  that  the  government  of  the  church 
by  a  perpetual  moderator  is  most  agreeable  to  the  Scripture.  Though 
herein  we  differ  from  them :  yet  we  are  far  from  thinking,  that  this 
difference  should  hinder  a  happy  union  between  them  and  us.  Nay, 
we  humbly  conceive,  that  it  will  not  be  well  with  England,  till  there 
be  union  endeavored  and  effected  between  all  those  that  are  ortho- 
dox in  doctrine  ;  though  differing  among  themselves  in  some  circum- 
stances about  government."* 

*  Flea,  &c.  pages  257,  258,  259. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  181 

Rur.  I  cannot  say  I  entirely  approve  of  the  extenuating  expres- 
sion concerning  the  difference  between  Presbyterial  church  govern- 
ment and  the  opposite  schemes  of  Diocesan  Episcopacy  and  Indeped- 
dency.  The  difference  is  essential :  the  consessions  of  the  more  mod- 
erate Episcopalians  and  Independents  involve  them  in  manifest  incon- 
sistency ;  but  do  not  amount,  in  either  of  them,  to  a  candid  renun- 
ciation of  their  error.  Some  of  the  former  sort,  who  allow,  that  a 
bishop  and  a  presbyter  are  of  the  same  order,  when  they  plead  for  any 
sort  of  prelacy  in  good  earnest,  strenuously  maintain,  that,  in  a  set- 
tled state  of  the  church,  no  government  can  be  regularly  exercised 
even  by  preaching  presbyters,  without  a  bishop  at  their  head.  Some 
of  the  latter  sort,  that  is,  of  the  Independents,  speak  of  their  having 
ministers  and  elders,  and  of  the  usefulness  of  synod  in  some  cases ;  and 
yet  they  obstinately  maintain,  that  the  government  of  these  officers  is 
confined  to  the  time  they  are  presiding  and  keeping  order  in  a  meeting 
of  the  congregation;  and  that  they  have  no  authority  without  the 
bounds  of  it.  Both  parties  deny,  that  any  authority  to  rule  in  the  cath- 
olic church  is  committed  to  presbyters,  as  such,  by  the  head  of  the 
church;  but  either  in  conjuction  with  a  bishop  or  with  the  body  of  the 
christian  people.  So  that  it  seems  improper  to  say,  that  the  difference 
between  Presbyterians  and  these  parties  is  only  in  some  circumstances. 
But  as  to  the  substance  of  your  quotation,  I  can  see  nothing  in  it  that 
countenances  your  catholic  scheme  of  communion.  The  amount  of 
what  is  here  said  is,  that  we  are  to  regard  these  parties  with  cordial 
affection,  according  to  the  conformity  to  the  word  of  God  that  we  see 
in  their  profession  and  practice  ;  and  that  Presbyterians  have  a  fairer 
prospect  of  attaining  a  warrantable  sacramental  communion  with  them, 
than  with  some  other  parties.  In  the  passage  you  have  recited,  sac- 
ramental communion  is  not  expressly  mentioned;  and  it  is  implied, 
that  there  ought  to  be  a  previous  union  in  order  to  sacramental  com- 
munion. Whereas  the  scheme  of  catholic  communion  contended  for, 
requires  no  previous  union  in  order  to  sacramental  communion  with 
the  Episcopal  and  Independent  churches. 

§  60.  Alex.  My  third  proof  is  from  the  prevailing  sentiment  of  the 
Independents.  The  ministers  and  messengers  of  above  one  hundred 
congregations  met  at  the  Savoy,  Oct.  12,  1653 ;  and  adopted  substan- 
tially the  doctrines  of  the  Westmmster  Confession.  They  agreed,  that 
churches  consisting  of  persons  sound  in  the  Faith  and  of  good  conver- 
sation, ought  not  to  refuse  communion  with  each  other ;  though  they 
walk  not  in  all  things  according  to  the  same  rule  of  church  order ;  and 
that,  if  they  judge  other  churches  to  be  true  churches,  though  less  pure, 
they  may  receive  to  sacramental  communion  such  members  of  those 
churches  as  are  credibly  testified  to  be  godly,  and  to  live  without  of- 
fence. 

Dr.  Owen,  whose  influence  in  that  synod  is  conceded,  maintains, 
that  such  a  communion  of  churches  is  to  be  enquired  after,  as  from 


182  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

which  no  true  church  of  Christ  is  or  can  be  excluded.  "  However," 
says,  he,  "  we  plead  for  the  rights  of  particular  churches,  yet  our  real 
controversy  with  most  in  the  world  is  for  the  being,  union,  and  com- 
munion of  the  church  catholic,  which  are  variously  preverted  by  many, 
separating  it  into  parties,  and  confining  it  to  rules,  measures,  and  can- 
nons of  their  own  finding  out  and  establishment." 

Had  the  Presbyterian  government,  adds  he,  been  settled  at  the  res- 
toi'ation  of  King  Charles  the  Second,  by  the  encouragement  and  pro- 
tection of  the  practice  of  it,  without  a  rigorous  imposition  of  every 
thing  supposed  to  belong  thereto,  or  a  mixture  of  human  constitutions ; 
if  there  had  any  appearance  of  a  schism  or  separation  continued  be- 
tween the  parties,  I  do  judge,  they  would  have  been  both  to  blame. 
For,  as  it  cannot  be  expected,  that  all  churches  and  all  persons  in 
them  should  agree  in  all  principles  and  practices  belonging  to  church 
order ;  nor  was  it  so  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  nor  ever  since,  among 
any  true  churches  of  Christ:  so  all  the  fundamental  principles  of 
church  communion  would  have  been  so  fixed  and  agreed  on  between 
them,  and  all  offences  in  worship  so  removed,  as  that  it  would  have 
been  a  matter  of  no  great  art  absolutely  to  unite  them,  or  to  maintain 
a  firm  communion  among  them.  When  Dr,  Owen  admits,  that  the 
Presbyterians  and  Independents  did  not  agree  in  the  Westminster  As- 
sembly, he  means,  that  they  did  not  agree  in  a  scheme  of  public  eccle- 
siastical union. 

As  peace  between  nations,  says  Mr.  John  How,  infers  commerce ; 
so  among  christian  churches,  it  ought  to  infer  fellowship  in  acts  of  wor- 
ship. I  wish  there  were  no  cause  to  say,  this  is  declined,  when  no 
pretence  is  left  against  it  but  false  accusation.  Whatsoever  mistake 
in  judgment,  or  obliquity  in  practice,  can  consist  with  holding  the  head, 
ought  to  consist  also  with  being  of  the  same  christian  communion. 
And  indeed  to  make  new  boundaries  of  church  communion  is  to  make 
a  new  Christianity,  and  a  new  gospel,  and  new  rules  of  Christ's  King- 
dom. It  is  to  confine  salvation,  in  the  means  of  it,  to  such  or  such  a 
party ;  to  make  the  Lord's  table  lose  its  name,  and  be  no  longer  so 
called,  but  the  table  of  this  or  that  church,  constituted  by  rules  of  their 
own  devising.* 

RuF.  A  candid  consideration  of  these  passages  will  discover  little 
or  nothing  in  them  that  really  favors  the  scheme  of  catholic  commun- 
ion now  pleaded  for.  When  the  Independents  adopted  their  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  it  does  not  appear  that  they  offered  sacramental  com- 
munion to  open  and  obstinate  opposers  of  any  scriptural  article  of  it. 
And  the  admission  of  persons  who  were  not  so,  whatever  opinions  they 
might  have  had  of  church  order  or  of  other  things,  was  no  example  of 
this  scheme  of  the  catholic  communion  in  question.  I  am  far  from 
saying,  that  persons  are  to  be  rejected  for  their  not  having  attained 

*  Plea,  &c.  pages  259—266. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  183 

the  same  measure  of  knowledge  with  other  members  of  the  church ; 
while  they  are  not  avowing  an  obstinate  opposition  to  any  article  of 
the  church's  public  profession ;  and  while  they  are  willing  to  go  for- 
ward in  Reformation.  So  far  we  may  agree  with  the  Savoy  Assem- 
bly in  their  proposal  of  receiving  such  as  are  sound  in  the  Faith,  not- 
withstanding difference  of  attainment.  Their  language  about  not  re- 
fusing communion  with  other  churches,  proceeded  from  their  errone- 
ous notion  about  their  congregations  or  Assemblies  for  public  worship, 
being  so  many  distinct  Independent  churches.  While  we  hold  the 
Presbyterial  to  be  the  only  scriptural  constitution  of  the  christian 
church,  we  reject  the  division  of  it  into  Independent  churches.  But 
as  to  the  occasional  sacramental  communion  of  the  members  of  one  of 
these  Independent  congregations  with  another  adhering  to  the  Savoy 
Confession,  it  could  be  no  example  of  the  scheme  of  catholic  commun- 
ion under  our  consideration.  For  whatever  diversity  there  might  be 
among  these  congregations  on  some  points  of  church  order ;  there  was 
no  stated  opposition  in  the  public  profession  of  any  of  them  to  any  ar- 
ticle of  the  scriptural  profession  of  another. 

With  regard  to  the  being,  the  union,  or  communion  of  the  catholic 
church,  there  is  no  way  of  ascertaining  how  far  any  religious  society 
adheres  to  it,  but  by  the  marks  proposed  in  the  Confessions  of  the  Re- 
formed churches,  which  we  have  already  considered.  These  marks  are 
to  regulate  the  communion  of  eyery  particular  church.  This  is  the  on- 
ly way  to  guard  against  what  Dr.  Owen  justly  censures  in  a  particular 
church ;  the  confining  of  her  communion  to  rules,  measures  and  canons 
of  men's  finding  out  and  establishment.  Nor  do  I  disapprove  of  his 
observation  concerning  what  would  have  been  the  probable  consequence 
of  the  settlement  of  Presbyterian  government  at  the  restoration  of 
Charles  the  Second  by  the  protection  and  encouragement  of  the  prac- 
tice of  it  without  enforcing  it  by  civil  penalties ;  namely,  that  it  would 
have  united  some  of  the  different  parties ;  especially,  the  pious  Inde- 
pendents with  the  Presbyterians,  in  a  firm  communion.  But  this  would 
have  been  a  communion  of  people  cordially  adhering  to  one  confession 
of  faith,  to  one  directory  for  public  worship,  and  to  one  form  of  Pres- 
byterial church  government ;  a  communion  quite  the  reverse  of  your 
mongrel  catholic  communion  of  people  who  may  be  of  the  most  oppo- 
site professions  and  practices  in  all  things,  excepting  the  few  things 
you  call  essentials. 

The  design  of  the  passages  you  have  quoted  seems  to  have  been, 
partly  to  oppose  the  use  of  the  coercive  measures  of  the  civil  magis- 
trate in  matters  of  religion  ;  and  partly  to  censure  the  humanly  devis- 
ed rites  and  ceremonies,  the  approbation  of  which  was  made  a  term  of 
communion  in  the  Church  of  England.  Hence  Dr.  Owen  speaks  of  the 
rigorous  imposition  of  things  supposed  to  belong  to  Presbyterial  gov- 
ernment, or  a  mixture  of  human  constitutions  ;  and  Mr.  How,  of  the 
Lord's  table  being  made  the  table  of  this  or  that  church  constitution 


184  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

by  rules  of  their  own  devising.  But  if  the  public  profession  of  a  par- 
ticular church  be  no  more  than  a  simple  declaration  of  the  truths  and 
institutions  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  particularly  among  others  of  such 
as  are  despised  and  rejected  by  the  present  generation,  surely  in  that 
case,  it  could  not  be  a  rule  of  human  devising  for  the  church  to  require 
her  members  or  those  who  have  communion  with  her,  to  accede  to  her 
whole  profession  ;  for  he  requires  the  same  thing. 

I  am  persuaded,  that  many  of  the  pious  Independents  would  have 
considered  sacramental  communion  with  those,  who  treat  any  one  ar- 
ticle of  a  scriptural  profession  with  open  contempt,  as  greatly  dishon- 
oring to  our  Lord  Jesus.  What  then  would  they  have  said  of  a 
scheme  which  recommends  sacramental  communion  with  those  who  treat 
not  only  one,  but  many  articles  of  such  a  profession,  in  that  man- 
ner ? 

§  61.  To  represent  Dr.  Owen,  as  favoring  this  scheme  of  catholic 
communion,  is  to  represent  him  as  grossly  inconsistent  with  himself 
He  says  in  one  of  his  treatises,  ''  Though  a  church,  or  that  which  pre- 
tends itself  on  any  grounds  so  to  be,  do  not  profess  error  in  doctrine  or 
be  guilty  of  idolatrous  practices  in  worship  ;  yet  if  that  church  do  not, 
will  not,  or  cannot  reform  itself,  there  is  a  sufficient  ground  of  separa- 
tion from  such  a  church.  "* 

In  another  work,  he  has  these  words  ;  "  Causeless  separation  from 
established  churches,  walking  according  to  the  order  of  the  gospel 
(though  perhaps  failing  in  th«  practice  of  some  things  of  small  concern- 
ment) is  no  small  sin  ;  but  separation  from  the  sinful  practices  and  dis- 
orderly walkings,  and  false  unwarranted  ways  of  worship  in  any,  is  to 
fulfill  the  precept  of  not  partaking  of  other  men's  sins."f 

He  says,  "  Where  there  is,  in  any  church  taught  or  allowed,  a  mix- 
ture of  doctrines  or  opinions,  that  are  prejudicial  to  gospel  holiness  or 
obedience,  no  man,  that  takes  due  care  of  his  salvation,  can  join  him- 
self to  it.  For  the  original  rule  and  measure  of  all  church  communion 
is  agreement  in  the  doctrine  of  truth.  "J 

§  62.  Alex.  My  fourth  proof  is  from  the  sentiments  of  Presbyte- 
rians at  or  near  the  time  of  the  Westminster  Assembly.  Dr.  Manton 
protests  against  the  breaking  off  church  fellowship  and  making  rents 
in  the  body  of  Christ  because  of  difference  of  opinion  in  smaller  mat- 
ters, when  we  agree  in  the  more  weighty  things.  We  are  to  walk  to- 
gether so  far  as  we  are  agreed,  Philip,  iii.  16.  The  only  lawful 
grounds  of  separation  are  three.  1.  Intolerable  persecution.  2 
Damnable  heresy.     3.  Gross  idolatry.     Mr.  Richard  Vines  a  member 

*  Enquiry  into  tlie  nature  and  constitution  of  Evangelical  churches,  page  209. 
i"  Rules  of  walking  in  church  fellowship,  Rule  Y. 
X  Guide  to  church  fellowship  and  order,  chap.  iv. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  185 

of  the  Assembly,  in  Ms  treatise  of  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  supper, 
has  a  chapter  on  this  question,  Whether  a  godly  man  may  and  ought 
to  hold  communion  in  the  ordinances  of  God  with  a  congregation, 
where  men  visibly  scandalous  in  life  and  conversation  are  mingled 
with  the  good  ?  or  whether  this  mixture  does  not  pollute  the  ordinan- 
ces, and  the  communion  to  the  godly?— There  are  degrees  of  corrup- 
tion ;  the  doctrine  may  be  corrupted  in  some  remote  points,  hay  and 
stubbie  upon  the  foundation ;  of  the  worship,  in  respect  of  some  rituals 
or  rites  of  men's  invention  or  custom : — I  must  in  such  cases  avoid  the 
corruption,  hold  the  communion.  Yet  I  do  not  account  it  separation, 
if  a  christian  hear  a  sermon  or  receive  the  sacrament  in  another  con- 
gregation."^ 

RuF.  Such  passages  of  our  eminent  divines,  declaring  the  evil  of 
separation  cannot  well  be  pressed  into  the  service  of  your  scheme  of 
catholic  communion :  for  as  your  catholic  communion  is  occasional,  it 
supposes  separation ;  extenuates  the  evil  of  it,  and  tends  to  continue 
it.  According  to  this  scheme  causing  division  and  offences  in  the 
church  of  Christ,  unless  they  be  such  as  refer  directly  to  the  essentials 
of  the  christian  religion,  is  no  great  evil ;  it  may  pass  without  censure, 
and  is  no  hindrance  to  the  most  intimate  church  communion ;  that  is, 
to  sacramental  communion. 

I  own,  it  seems  hard  to  understand  these  words  of  Mr.  Amines :  I 
must  in  such  cases  avoid  the  con^uption,  hold  the  communion.  If, 
by  the  rites  of  men's  invention,  he  means  rites  used  as  a  part  of  public 
worship,  and  by  communion,  joining  with  others  in  that  worship ;  how 
could  he  avoid  these  rites  and  yet  hold  the  communion,  or  join  in  the 
public  worship  of  which  they  were  a  part  ?  But  it  appears  from  the 
terms,  in  which  Mr.  Yines  proposes  the  question  of  which  he  treats, 
that  what  he  designs  to  teach  is,  that  the  personal  faults  of  fellow  wor- 
shiper's do  not  pollute  the  ordinances  to  the  godly ;  as  the  Bro^\Tiists 
asserted.  So  that  if  these  rites  or  customs  were  only  personal  faults, 
and  no  part  of  the  worship  publicly  professed  by  the  particular  church 
in  which  they  were  used ;  and  if  another  congregation  in  which  Mr. 
Yines  allows  christians  to  hear  a  sermon  and  receive  the  sacrament  be 
a  congregation  whose  public  profession  is  known  by  these  christians 
to  be  not  contrary  to  any  one  scriptural  article  essential  or  not  essen- 
tial, of  their  own  public  profession;  then  I  have  no  objection  to  the 
words  of  Mr.  Yines. 

It  may  be  observed,  that  there  seems  to  be  a  want  of  precision  in 
Dr.  Manton's  account  of  the  grounds  of  separation ;  fori  suppose  Dr. 
Manton  would  not  have  denied,  that  real  idolatry,  though  not  gross ; 
and  real  heresy,  hazarding  salvation,  even  though  not  the  most  damna- 
ble; if  maintained  in  the  public  profession  of  a  particular  church,  and 
obstinately  persisted  in,  after  many  remonstrances  and  testimonies  have 

*  Plea,  &c.  pcages  267.  268,  269. 


186  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

been  given  against  it,  may  at  last  be  sufficient  ground  of  withdrawing 
from  the  sacramental  communion  of  that  church.  Dr.  Owens'  repre- 
sentation of  the  grounds  on  which  the  communion  of  a  particular  church 
may  be  warrantably  declined,  is  much  more  intelligible.  But  with  re- 
gard to  some  of  the  quotations  from  the  writings  of  divines  on  this 
subject,  we  may  observe,  that,  as  before  Pelagius  appeared  in  the  world 
the  primitive  fathers  used  some  unguarded  expressions  concerning  man's 
natural  ability  and  free  will ;  so  eminent  divines  may  have  been  more 
unguarded  in  some  expressions  about  church  communion,  before  the 
latitudinarian  scheme  prevailed,  and  before  its  baneful  influence  appear- 
ed so  much  as  it  does  in  the  present  age. 

Alex.  Mr.  Richard  Baxter  thus  writes :  I  do  not  lay  so  great  a 
stress  upon  the  external  modes  and  forms  of  worship  as  many  young 
professors  do.  I  have  suspected  myself,  as  perhaps  the  reader  may  do, 
that  this  is  from  a  cooling  and  declining  from  my  former  zeal.  But  I 
find,  that  judgment  and  charity  are  the  causes  of  it,  as  far  as  I  am  able 
to  discover.  I  cannot  be  so  narrow  in  my  principles  of  church  com- 
munion as  many  are.  If  I  were  among  the  Greeks,  the  Lutherans, 
the  Independents ;  yea,  the  Anabaptists,  (that  own  no  heresy,  nor  set 
themselves  against  charity  and  peace)  I  would  hold  sometimes  occa- 
sional communion  with  them  as  christians,  (if  they  will  give  me  leave, 
without  forcing  me  to  any  sinful  subscription  or  action,)  though  my 
most  usual  communion  should  be  with  that  society,  which  I  thought 
most  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God,  if  I  were  free  to  choose,  I  can- 
not be  of  their  mind,  who  think  that  God  will  not  accept  him  that  prays 
by  the  common  prayer  book,  or  who  use  extemporary  prayers.  These 
are  admirable  principles,  admirably  expressed,  worthy  of  the  man, 
whom.  Bishop  Wilkins  being  judge,  it  was  honor  enough  for  one  age 
to  produce ;  and  who  could  say,  as  he  said  to  a  friend,  I  can  as  will- 
ingly be  a  martyr  for  love  as  for  any  article  of  the  creed,* 

RuF.  Mr,  Baxter  has  been  called  a  Presbyterian  ;  but  it  is  evident, 
that  he  did  not  entirely  agree  to  Presbyterial  church  government.  He 
says,  that  he  hoped  for  agreement  with  the  moderate  sort  of  Episcopa- 
lians, who  hold  episcopacy  to  be  "  necessary  to  the  well  being,  but  not 
to  the  being  of  the  ministry  and  church,  "f  He  appears  to  agree  to 
Bishop  Usher's  plan  of  episcopacy,  that  there  should  be  a  bishop  or 
constant  President  over  so  many  pastors.  J  He  says,  I  disliked  the 
Presbyterian  order  of  lay  elders,  who  had  no  ordination,  nor  power  to 
preach,  nor  to  administer  sacraments.  He  speaks  of  the  Presbyterians 
as  binding  the  magistrates  to  confiscate  or  imprison  men.  ||  It  is  hard- 
ly conceivable,  that  Mr.  Baxter  could  be  ignorant,  that  such  binding  of 
the  magistrates  does  not  belong  to  Presbyterial  church  government ;  he 

*  Plea,  &c.  pages  270,  271, 

+  Neeessarium  ad  bene  esse  ministerii  et  ecelesiae,  sed  non  ad  esse.  Life  of  Mr. 
Baxter,  written  by   himself,  page  149.    t  Page  192,     g  Page  142. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  187 

must  have  known  that  presbyterial  church  government  was  exercised, 
by  Cartwright  and  those  who  joined  with  him,  without  the  countenance 
of  the  civil  magistrate.  He  says,  he  kept  the  town  and  parish  of  Kid- 
derminster, and  the  most  of  Worcestershire  from  taking  the  Solemn 
League  and  Covenant.*  Nor  did  he  approve  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  as  a  term  of  communion,  or  as  a  part  of  the  intended 
uniformity  of  religoin  in  Britain  and  Ireland.  This  appears  from  a 
curious  passage  of  his  life  related  by  himself:  "  The  bookseller,"  says 
he,  "who  was  going  to  print  the  works  of  the  Westminster  Assembly, 
having  made  me  known,  that  some  reverned  ministers  desired  me  to 
write  an  epistle  recommending  the  works  of  that  Assembly  to  families, 
I  wrote  one  ;  but  required  him  to  put  it  into  other  men's  hands,  to 
publish  or  suppress  according  to  their  judgment ;  but  to  be  sure,  that 
they  printed  all  or  none.  The  bookseller  got  Dr.  Manton  to  put  an 
epistle  before  the  book ;  in  which  epistle  he  inserted  mine  as  mine, 
without  naming  me.  But  he  left  out  a  part,  which,  it  seems,  was  not 
pleasing  to  all.  When  I  had  commended  the  catechisms  for  the  use  of 
families,  I  added,  that  I  hoped,  the  Assembly  intended  not  all,  in  the 
long  confession  and  those  catechisms,  to  be  imposed  as  a  test  of  chris- 
tian communion,  nor  to  disown  all  that  scrupled  any  word  in  it.  If 
they  had,  I  could  not  have  commended  it  for  any  such  use,  though  it 
be  useful  for  the  instruction  of  families,  "f 

Dr.  Manton  knew  well,  that  the  words  which  he  left  out,  were  in- 
tended to  censure  the  real  design  of  these  forms  of  sound  words  ;  which 
was  to  exclude,  from  sacramental  communion  of  the  church,  every 
avowed  and  obstinate  opposer  of  any  of  the  scriptural  doctrines  therein 
exhibited.  This  is  what  Baxter  invidiously  calls  imposing  as  a  test 
and  disowning  a!l  that  scrupled  any  word.  This  learned  and  laborious 
man  certainly  deviated  greatly  from  the  Protestant  doctrine  of  justifi- 
cation by  faith  only,  in  representing  the  gospel  as  a  new  law,  promis- 
ing eternal  life  upon  condition  of  sincere  obedience  to  its  precepts ; 
and  in  teaching,  that  in  our  justification  before  God,  faith  is  to  be  con- 
sidered not  only  as  a  mean  of  receiving  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  but 
as  including  obedience.  He  agreed  with  the  scheme  of  universal  re- 
demption, l^roached  and  propagated  by  Cameron  and  Amyraldus  in 
the  Reformed  Church  of  France ;  the  spread  of  which  was  one  of  the 
first  things,  which  brought  that  church,  once  so  eminent  in  purity,  into 
a  declining  state ;  from  which  it  does  not  appear  that  it  has  ever  re- 
covered. Some  have  thought,  that  this  doctrine  differs  little  from  that 
which  was  established  by  the  Synod  of  Dort.  But,  as  Mosheim  justly 
observes,  "  such  persons  do  not  seem  to  have  attentively  considered, 
either  the  principles  from  whence  it  is  derived,  or  the  consequences  to 
which  it  leads.  The  more,  says  he,  that  I  examine  this  reconciling 
system,  the  more  am  I  persuaded,  that  it  is  no  more  than  Arminian- 

*Life  of  Mr.  Baxter,  written  by  himself.  Page  64.    fPage  122. 


188  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

ism  or  Pelagianism  artfully  dressed  up  and  covered  with  a  half  trans- 
parent veil  of  specious  but  ambiguous  expressions  ;  and  this  judgment 
is  confirmed  by  the  modern  followers  of  Amyraldus,  who  express  their 
sentiments  with  more  courage  and  prespicuity,  than  the  spirit  of  the 
times  permitted  their  master  to  do."* 

Mr.  Baxter  states  his  opinion  concerning  the  terms  of  church  com- 
munion in  these  words  :  "I  think  this  is  all  that  should  be  required  of 
any  church  or  members  (ordinarily)  to  be -professed  :  In  general,  I  do 
believe  all  that  is  contained  in  the  sacred  canonical  scriptures,  and  par- 
ticularly I  believe  all  explicitly  contained  in  the  ancient  creed  ;  and  I 
resolve  upon  obedience  to  the  ten  commandments,  and  whatever  else 
I  can  learn  of  the  will  of  God.  And  for  all  other  points,  it 
is  enough  to  preserve  both  truth  and  peace,  that  men  promise  not  to 
preach  against  them  or  contradict  them,  though  they  subscribe  them 
not."t 

As  to  this  plan  it  may  be  observed  :  1.  That  the  practice  of  latitu- 
dinarian  communion  is  not  agreeable  to  it;  for  when  Presbyterians 
and  Episcopalians  and  Psedobaptists  and  Antipaidobaptists  have  sac, 
ramental  communion  together  according  to  the  catholic  scheme,  they 
do  not,  they  cannot  promise  not  to  contradict  one  another.  2.  That 
sacramental  communion  cannot  on  this  plan  be  refused  to  the  grossest 
heretics,  such  as  Arians  and  Socinians  ;  for  as  this  plan  is  opposed  to 
an  orthodox  confession  of  faith,  it  must  be  understood  of  the  mere 
words  of  scripture  even  in  opposition  to  the  true  sense  of  it.  It  is  true, 
that  Avhen  this  Avas  objected  to  Mr.  Baxter,  he  said  those  heretics  ought 
to  be  called  to  an  account  for  contradicting  or  abusing  the  truth,  to 
which  they  had  subscribed.  J  But  it  is  evident  that  this  answer  is  a 
mere  shift  and  nothing  to  the  purpose  :  for  they  cannot  be  convicted 
of  any  heresy  without  charging  them  with  contradicting  the  sense  of 
scripture :  a  charge,  which  they  could  reject  as  easily  as  they  could 
reject  an  orthodox  confession  of  faith.  The  justice  of  trying  them  by 
the  sense  of  scripture  is  evidently  given  up  in  setting  aside  confessions 
of  faith  ;  and  it  cannot  consistently  with  this  plan  be  resorted  to.  3. 
That  the  reasons,  which  would  warrant  a  church  to  require  an  appro- 
bation of  what  is  called  the  apostle's  creed,  would  warrant  them  to  re- 
quire an  approbation  of  the  Westminster  Confession  ;  the  former  is  of 
no  more  authority  than  the  latter.  4.  That  this  scheme  tends  to  bring 
all  testimonies  for  truth,  all  condemnation  of  errors  as  contrary  to  the 
word  of  Grod  ;  nay,  all  preaching  and  instruction  as  it  lies  in  giving  the 
sense  of  scripture,  and  not  a  mere  repetition  of  the  words  or  syllables, 
into  contempt :  for,  according  to  this  scheitfe,  a  person  may  disregard 
all  these  without  being  liable  to  any  church  censure. 

*  Mosheim's  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  IV.  page  247. 
t  Life  of  Baxter,  page  198.  J  Ibid. 


x^LEXANDER   AND  RUFUS.  189 

Though  I  would  not  agree  to  all  the  great  swelling  words,  which 
some  have  used  in  expressing  their  admiration  of  Mr.  Baxter ;  yet  I 
have  too  much  esteem  for  him  as  a  zealous  christian,  a  laborious  min- 
ister, and  in  some  respects  an  useful  writer,  to  suppose  that  he  would 
have  desired  us  to  follow  him  any  further  than  he  followed  Christ :  so  I 
think  we  are  as  little  to  follow  him  in  his  indigested,  latitudinarian 
scheme  of  communion,  as  in  his  Neonomian  doctrine. 

It  may  ho  added,  that  however  zealous  Mr.  Baxter  was  for  the  lati- 
tudinarian scheme  of  communion,  yet  he  did  not  go  so  far  as  some  of 
our  more  modern  advocates  for  it  do  in  charging  such  as  decline  it, 
with  separating  from  the  communion  of  the  catholic  church,  and  in  as- 
serting, that  we  cannot  decline  the  sacramental  communion  of  a  par- 
ticular church  on  account  of  obstinacy  in  corruption  or  backsliding, 
without  unchurching  that  church.  On  the  question.  Whether  it  be  our 
duty  to  seek  peace  with  the  Anabaptists,  he  observes,  That  there  is  a 
peace  of  actual  communion  in  the  worship  of  God  as  members  of  the 
same  particular  church :  this^  he  says,  we  owe  not  to  every  christian ; 
though  sincere  in  the  main.*  On  another  question,  he  says,  The  same 
act,  (as  coming  to  common  prayer  or  sacrament  in  the  churches)  might 
become  a  duty  to  some  men  and  a  sin  to  others,  by  the  diversity  of 
their  stations,  relations,  pastors,  churches,  occasions,  circumstances. f 
If  Mr.  Baxter  means,  that,  though  the  joining  in  what  was  erroneous 
or  superstitious  in  the  common  prayer  and  the  mode  of  celebrating 
the  sacrament  used  in  the  established  church  of  England  was  really 
sinful,  yet  it  might  become  a  duty  on  the  accounts  he  mentions ;  the 
truth  of  the  affirmation  cannot  be  admitted.  It  shows,  however,  that 
he  did  not  impute  the  consequences  just  now  mentioned  to  the  refusal 
of  latitudinarian  communion. 

Alex.  The  divines  who  were  members  of  the  Westminster  Assem- 
bly seem  to  have  entertained  the  same  opinion  with  Mr.  Baxter  as  to 
the  freedom  of  chur^i  communion.  For  not^tithstanding  all  their 
complaints  of  the  abuses  and  corruptions  of  the  established  church, 
they  nevertheless,  after  the  year  1660,  when  Charles  the  Second  was 
restored,  continued  in  her  fellowship.  They  offered,  as  a  plan  of  ac- 
commodation with  the  Episcopalians,  Archbishop  Usher's  model  of 
primitive  Episcopacy,  the  chief  feature  of  which  is,  that,  without  de- 
stroying the  distinctive  titles  of  archbishop,  bishop,  and  presbyter,  as 
known  in  England,  they  might  be  conjoined  in  the  government  of  the 
church }  a  bishop  being  perpetual  president  in  the  ecclesiastical  as- 
semblies made  up  of  presbyters.  They  oifered,  that  the  surplice,  the 
cross  in  baptism,  and  kneeling  at  the  communion,  should  be  left  indif- 
ferent. They  were  content  to  set  aside  the  Assembly's  Confession, 
and  to  let  the  articles  of  the  Church  of  England  take  place  with  some 
few  amendments. 

Baxter's  Life,  page  181.  t  Part  2d,  page  2S8i 


190  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

Many  Presbyterian  ministers,  after  they  had  been  ejected  for  non- 
conformity, held  communion  with  the  Established  Church  of  England 
in  her  public  ordinances. 

Samuel  Clarke,  unable  to  subscribe  the  act  of  uniformity,  laid  aside 
his  ministry,  and  attended  the  Church  of  England  both  as  a  hearer  and 
as  a  communicant.  Zachary  Crofton,  a  warm  advocate  for  the  Solemn 
League  and  Covenant,  while  a  prisoner  in  the  tower  for  his  non-con- 
formity, attended  the  chapel  service;  was  against  separation  from  the 
parish  churches :  and  wrote  a  Plea  for  communion  with  the  established 
church.  John  Farrol,  an  humble,  peaceable,  laborious  divine,  when 
ejected  for  non-conformnity,  used  to  go  to  the  established  church,  as 
his  people  also  did ;  and  either  before  or  after  doing  so,  to  preach  in 
private.  Daniel  Poyntell,  so  remarkably  blessed  in  his  ministry,  that 
he  had  scarcely  a  prayerless  family  in  his  parish,  used,  after  his  eject- 
ment by  the  Bartholomew  act,  to  hold  ministerial  fellowship  with  the 
establishment,  preaching  after  the  order  of  the  Church  of  England  to 
his  old  flock  at  Staplehurst.  Mr.  Ambrose  and  Mr.  Cole  of  Preston 
declared,  that  they  could  read  the  common  prayer,  and  should  do  it; 
and  twenty  ministers,  before  whom  they  made  this  declaration,  ap- 
proved their  proceeding.  Joseph  Alleine,  though  he  suffered  long 
imprisonment,  because  he  would  not  cease  from  his  ministry  after  his 
ejectment ;  yet  often  attended  the  worship  of  the  parish  churches  and 
encouraged  his  people  to  do  so.  Anthony  Burgess,  a  member  of  the 
Westminster  Assembly,  alter  his  ejectment,  lived  in  a  very  cheerful 
and  pious  manner,  frequenting  and  encouraging  the  ministry  of  the 
conforming  clergymen.  George  Hopkins,  a  Presbyterian,  after  his 
ejectment,  frequented  the  parish  church  with  his  family,  received  the 
holy  communion,  and  did  all  things  required  of  him  as  a  lay  member 
of  the  Church  of  England.  These  ministers  were  disposed  to  be  one 
with  every  body  that  was  one  with  Christ.  They  abhorred  a  close  and 
narrow  spirit,  which  affects  or  confines  religion  to  a  party.  They 
thought  that  no  more  conditions  should  be  made  for  the  communion 
of  the  churches  than  Christ  has  made  for  communion  with  him ;  and 
that  nothing  should  be  made  necessary  to  christian  communion  but 
what  Christ  has  made  necessary,  or  what  is  indeed  necessary  to  one's 
being  a  christian. 

§  63.  RuF.  These  and  similar  common-place  expressions  may  be 
used  either  in  a  true  or  false  sense.  We  are  often  misled  by  first 
taking  such  propositions  for  self-evident  truths,  and  then  applying 
them  in  an  erroneous  sense  to  a  particular  subject.  It  is  true,  that  we 
should  be  one  with  those  that  are  one  with  Christ,  if  it  be  understood 
of  their  state,  and  of  all  those  things  in  which  they  are  one  with  Christ; 
but  it  is  false,  if  it  be  understood  of  things  in  their  profession  and 
practice  in  which  they  are  not  one  with  him,  but  are  chargeable  with 
declining  from  the  rule  of  his  word.  We  should  be  one  with  Aaron 
the  saint  of  the  Lord ;  yet  we  are  not  to  be  one  with  him  in  the  mak- 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  191 

ing  of  the  golden  calf.  That  we  are  to  abhor  a  close  and  narrow  spirit 
that  confines  religion  to  a  party,  is  true,  if  it  mean,  that  we  are  to  be- 
ware of  judging  persons  not  to  be  in  a  state  of  grace^  or  not  accepted 
with  God  in  what  they  do  according  to  his  word,  merely  upon  the 
ground  of  their  belonging  to  such  party.  But  it  is  most  false,  if  it 
mean,  that  they  who  hold  the  truth  in  their  profession,  may  never  be 
reduced  to  a  few ;  while  the  great  body  of  professors  are  involved  in 
error  and  corruption.  In  the  fourth  century,  the  profession  of  the 
truth  concerning  the  Deity  of  Christ  was  for  a  time  confined  to  Atha- 
nasius  and  a  small  party  that  adhered  to  him;  while  as  the  judicious 
Mr.  Durham  observes,  many  eminently  godly  men  were,  out  of  infir- 
mity, at  last  brought  to  subscribe  to  the  way  of  the  Arians.  It  is  true, 
no  more  conditions  should  be  made  for  the  communion  of  churches 
than  Christ  has  made  for  communion  with  him ;  if  it  be  undersrood  la 
this  sense,  that  nothing  should  be  a  conditon  or  term  of  communion  in 
the  churches,  but  what  belongs  to  the  appointed  means  of  promoting 
our  communion  with  him.  But  it  is  false,  if  it  means,  that  a  church 
should  not  require  of  her  members  any  thing,  without  or  before  which 
a  person  cannot  have  any  communion  with  Mm :  for  a  church  must 
always  require  a  public  agreement  to  her  scriptural  confession  of  the 
truth,  a  public  acknowledgment  of  'public  offences,  in  order  to  sacra- 
mental communion  with  her:  but  these  things  rightly  performed,  are 
rather  effects  of  communion  with  Christ,  than  previous  conditions  of 
it :  and,  in  some  cases,  persons  may  have  communion  with  Christ  with- 
out them.  That  nothing  should  be  necessary  to  church  communion 
but  what  Christ  made  necessary  to  the  well-being  of  a  christian  is 
true  :  but  that  nothing  should  be  necessary  to  church  communion  but 
what  Christ  has  made  necessary  to  the  being  of  a  christian  is  false. 
For  a  church  must  require  baptism  in  order  to  communion  at  the  Lord's 
table ;  and  yet  baptism  is  not  necessary  to  the  being  of  a  christian. 
A  church  must  require  upright  walking  according  to  the  truth  of  the 
gospel  of  all  her  communicants ;  and  yet  that  the  being  of  a  christian 
may  continue,  as  in  the  case  of  Peter,  Gal.  2  :  11,  14,  while  in  some 
respects  he  is  not  walking  uprightly  according  to  the  truth  of  the  gos- 
pel, cannot  be  denied.  The  use  of  such  phrases  to  express  a  judg- 
ment of  charity  concerning  the  general  character  of  persons  and 
churches,  and  the  ground  we  have  to  hope  for  their  Reformation,  may 
be  right  and  commendable  ;  but  when  they  are  used,  as  we  have  rea- 
son to  be  apprehensive  is  often  the  case,  in  order  to  extenuate  some 
acknowledged  evil,  and  to  evade  the  necessity  of  holding  some  reveal- 
ed truth  or  duty  in  opposition  to  that  evil,  they  are  of  hurtful  and 
dangerous  tendency. 

§  64.  With  regard  to  the  instances  you  have  adduced  of  Noncon- 
formists having  sacramental  communion  with  the  Established  Church 
of  England,  it  may  be  observed,  that,  as  the  Westminster  Assembly 
seem   to   have  had  no  view  of  an  occasional  communion  between 


192  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

churches  of  different  and  opposite  public  professions  in  the  same  local 
situation  or  on  terms  different  from  those  of  fixed  communion :  so  it 
does  not  appear,  that  the  Presbyterian  non-conformists  in  the  reign 
of  Charles  the  Second  had  any  such  notion. 

But  an  opinion  seems  then  to  have  prevailed  among  them,  that  it 
belonged  to  the  civil  magistrate  to  establish  the  true  religion.  Even 
the  ino'euious  author  of  Rectius  Instrueiidum  allows  the  power  of 
the  civil  magistrate  in  matters  of  religion.  ''  To  preserve,"  says  he, 
''the  worship  of  God  in  purity,  and  his  worshipers  in  peace,  is  a 
flower  which  adorns  the  royal  diadem  more  than  all  its  own  diamonds 
and  rubies."  They  seem  to  have  carried  this  matter  too  far  ;  and  to 
have  thought  it  unwarrantable  to  separate  from  a  Protestant  Epis- 
copal church,  when  estabhshed  by  the  civil  magistrate.  This  opinion 
was  manifestly  erroneous :  for  no  sanction  of  the  civil  pov/er  could 
make  any  thing  in  the  public  profession  of  the  church,  or  in  the  wor- 
ship of  God,  lawful,  which  is  (as  they  had  a  few  years  before  declared 
prelacy  and  the  ceremonies  of  the  established  church  to  be)  contrary 
to  his  word.  This  error  led  some  of  these  ejected  ministers  to  desist 
from  preaching  the  word  of  God ;  and  others,  who  preached  occasion- 
ally, to  dechne  the  dispensation  of  the  Lord's  supper ;  and  also,  to 
join  in  the  communion  of  the  established  church. 

To  attempt  to  justify  their  conduct,  in  respect  of  their  proposal  to 
leave  the  surplice,  crossing  in  baptism,  and  kneeling  at  the  Lord's  ta- 
ble indifferent;  to  set  aside  the  Assembly's  Confession,  and  to  estab- 
lish in  its  place  the  articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  would  be  in 
vain.  When  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  was  formed,  a  con- 
siderable progress  was  made  in  the  reformation  of  the  church  of  God 
in  England  and  Scotland :  ministers  and  people  were  bound  by  the 
command  of  God,  to  hold  fast  what  they  had  attained,  and  to  carry 
on  the  good  work  which  had  been  begun.  These  nations  were  also 
bound  to  all  the  reformation  they  had  attained  by  the  oath  of  God, 
into  which  they  had  entered.  Nothing  could  be  more  absurd  than 
the  attempts  that  were  sometimes  made  to  reconcile  the  Solemn  Lea- 
o-ue  and  Covenant  to  their  compliances  with  the  hierarchy  and  super- 
stition which  these  nations  were  bound  by  the  covenant  to  eradicate. 
Some  have  said,  that  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant  could  not 
bind  any  to  an  adherence  to'the  Confession  of  Faith,  form  of  presbyte- 
rial  church  government,  and  directory  for  public  worship;  because 
these  formularies  were  not  then  composed.  This  would  have  had 
some  color  of  reason,  if  they  had  not  precisely  corresponded  with  what 
was  sworn  to ;  that  is,  if  they  had  not  actually  exhibited  the  several 
parts  of  reformation  mentioned  in  that  covenant,  a  confession  of  faith, 
a  form  of  church  government,  a  directory  for  worship,  according  to 
the  word  of  God,  and  the  example  of  the  best  reformed  churches ;  in 
opposition  to  popery,  prelacy,  superstition,  heresy,  schism  and  pro- 
faneness.     But  this  correspondence  was  evident  and  undeniable  ;  and 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  193 

therefore  these  nations  were  bound,  by  that  covenant,  to  adhere  to 
the  whole  of  the  Reformation  described  in  these  forms  of  sound 
words.  While  that  was  the  covenanted  reformation,  it  is  plain,  that 
the  falling  away  from  any  part  of  it,  was  an  open  violation  of  that 
covenant. 

Nor  do  I  understand  how  their  refusal  of  conformity  to  the  estab- 
lished church  can  be  reconciled,  either  with  the  terms  on  which  they 
professed  to  conform,  or  with  their  occasional  communion  with  that 
church  in  her  public  ordinances.  I  have  no  conception  of  a  warrant 
for  communion  with  any  church  one  sabbath,  which  would  not  be  a 
warrant  for  communion  with  it  every  sabbath,  as  Divine  Providence 
affords  opportunity. 

I  know  it  was  said,  that  though  they  could  not  join  as  ministers, 
with  the  established  church,  on  account  of  the  subscription  required 
of  them  as  such  ;  yet  they  could  join  with  it  as  private  members.  But 
if  the  conformity  of  the  ministers  was  sinful,  how  could  it  be  justifia- 
ble in  others  to  hold  communion  with  them  under  the  character  of 
ministers  persisting  in  and  publicly  avowing  that  sinful  conformity  ? 
How  could  private  christians  do  so  without  partaking  of  the  sin  of  the 
ministers  ? 

The  terms  on  which  they  offered  to  conform  to  the  established 
church,  seem  to  be  quite  irreconcileable  with  their  former  profession. 
They  had  often  declared  the  worship  of  the  established  church,  accord- 
ing to  the  liturgy  and  canons,  to  be  superstitious  and  sinful :  how  then 
could  they  consent  to  join  in  that  worship  ?  They  had  professed  and 
taught  that  presbytery  is  the  only  form  of  church  government  ap- 
pointed in  the  word  of  God  :  and  how  could  they  afterwards  submit 
to  prelacy,  which  they  had  found  to  be  only  a  human  invention  ? 
They  had  also  professed  and  taught,  that  it  was  unlawful  for  the  civil 
magistrate  to  assume  to  himself  the  power  of  the  keys  of  the  Kingdom 
of  Heaven  ;  and,  therefore,  that  the  king's  ecclesiastical  supremacy  was 
a  sacrilegious  usurpation  :  how  then  could  they  own  that  supremacy, 
exercised  in  prohibiting  some,  and  appointing  others,  to  preach  and 
administer  the  sacraments  when  and  where  and  how  he  judged 
proper  ? 

They  had  solemnly  avowed,  that  the  Reformation  of  England,  ac- 
cording»to  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  directory  for  public 
worship^  form  of  presbyterial  church  government,  being  no  more  than 
what  the  word  of  God  requires,  was  indispensably  necessary  :  how 
then  could  they  agree  to  set  all  these  pieces  of  reformation  aside,  and 
acquiesce  in  what  was  far  short  of,  and  in  some  respects  contrary  to 
them  ?  Was  not  this  to  deny  what  they  had  before  professed,  that 
such  reformation  was  necessary  ?  Such  wavering  and  inconsistency 
would  be  highly  blameable  even  in  worldly  things  of  any  importance  j 
but  must  be  unspeakably  more  so,  in  the  matter  of  a  religious  profes- 
sion. The  truth  is,  both  England  and  Scotland  were,  at  this  time, 
13 


194  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

deeply  involved  in  apostacy  and  perjury.  To  this  day,  these  evils 
have  never  been  duly  acknowledged  by  the  British  nation  :  and  yet, 
without  an  acknowledgment  of  them,  we  have  no  good  ground  to  ex- 
pect a  thorough  reformation  there.  Without  an  acknowledgment  of 
these  evils,  they  are  holding  fast  deceit,  and  refusing  to  let  it  go  ;  re- 
fusing to  return  to  the  Lord. 

Nothing  seems  to  have  contributed  more  to  precipitate  both  Eng- 
land and  Scotland  into  this  enormous  guilt  than  the  unfaithfulness 
of  ministers.  Their  sinful  compliances  encouraged  the  profane,  vvick- 
ed  rulers  in  their  nefarious  design  of  breaking  down  the  carved  work 
of  reformation;  induced  the  more  ignorant  to  walk  willingly  after  the 
commandments  of  the  rulers ;  and  damped  the  resolution  and  efforts 
of  many,  who  were  well  affected  to  the  cause  of  God  and  truth. 
There  were,  however,  a  few  ministers,  both  in  England  and  Scotland, 
who  dared  to  exercise  their  office  without  submitting,  as  others  did,  to 
the  unwarrantable  restriction  and  limitations  of  their  rulers.  Some 
of  them,  particularly- in  Scotland,  loved  not  their  lives  unto  the  death 
for  the  word  of  God,  and  for  the  testimony  which  they  held.  Revel,  vi. 
9.  These  refused  to  have  communion  in  public  ordinances,  not  only 
with  prelatical  ministers,  but  even  with  the  accepters  of  indulgences 
or  licenses  from  the  civil  power,  to  exercise  their  ministry  under  cer- 
tain limitations.  The  Informatory  Vindication,  which  certainly  con- 
tains the  genuine  principles  of  church  communion,  held  by  the  suffer- 
ers for  the  cause  of  Christ  in  that  period,  declares,  that  they  could  by 
no  means  own  or  countenance  the  administi%tions  of  the  indulged 
ministers  ;  because  they  considered  the  indulgence,  in  any  of  the  forms 
in  w^hich  it  was  granted  by  the  civil  power,  as  derived  from  the  supre- 
macy claimed  by  that  power  in  ecclesiastical  matters;  as  laying  the 
office  of  the  ministry  under  unwarrantable  restriction ;  and  as  tend- 
ing, in  a  great  measure,  to  suppress  and  bury  the  covenanted  reforma- 
tion.* How  much  more  would  these  sufferers  disapprove  such  direct 
compliances  as  these  which  you  have  mentioned  ? 

§  65.  Alex.  John  Claude,  in  his  Defence  of  the  Reformation,  which 
received  the  official  sanction  of  the  Church  of  France,  agrees  with  the 
advocates  for  catholic  communion ;  condemns  the  practice  of  declin- 
ing sacramental  communion  with  churches  on  account  of  errors  or  su- 
perstitions of  less  importance.  The  points,  says  he,  which  divide  the 
Papists  and  Protestants,  are  not  points  of  simple  discipline  ;  nor  sim- 
ply scholastic  questions,  which  consists  in  terms  far  removed  from  the 
knowledge  of  the  people ;  nor  crimes,  nor  accusations  purely  person- 
al; nor  even  a  general  corruption  of  manners,  though  it  was  very 
great  in  the  clergy  in  the  days  of  our  fathers.  The  articles  which  se- 
parate us  are  points,  which,  in  our  view,  trouble  essentially  the  faith 
whereby  we  are  united  to  Jesus  Christ ;  points  which  alter,  essentially, 

*  Informatory  Vindication,  Head  iv. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  195 

the  worship  we  owe  to  God ;  which  damage,  essentially,  the  sources 
of  our  justification,  and  which  corrupt  the  means  internal,  as  well  as 
external,  of  obtaining  both  grace  and  glory.  In  a  word,  they  are 
points  which  we  believe  to  be  altogether  incompatible  with  salvation. 
There  are  some  other  points  held  by  the  Papists,  in  which  we  readily 
perceive  there  was  error  and  superstition  to  correct,  but  which  were 
not  sufficient  to  cause  a  rupture  of  communion  ;  such  as  the  question 
about  the  Limbus  of  the  ancient  fathers,  Christ's  local  descent  into 
hell,  the  distinction  between  presbyters  and  bishops  by  Divine  rights 
the  observation  of  lent.* 

RuF.  With  regard  to  the  official  sanction  of  the  Churches  of  France, 
it  may  be  observed,  that  at  the  time  referred  to,  these  churches  had 
lost  much  of  their  former  purity  by  the  spread  of  erroneous  opinions, 
such  as  those  of  Amyraldus  and  Pajonius,  and  by  the  relaxation  of  their 
discipline.  This  decline  is  alluded  to  by  the  collector  of  their  acts, 
in  the  following  pathetic  expressions:  "0,"  says  he,  "that  the  genera- 
tion which  succededthe  first  Reformers  had  not  relaxed  the  reins!  how 
happy  might  they  have  been!  In  the  morning  of  the  Reformation 
they  were  fair  as  the  moon,  clear  as  the  sun,  and  terrible  as  an  army 
with  banners.  The  greatest  princes  of  France  submitted  their  necks 
to  the  golden  yoke  of  Christ,  "f 

I  am  far,  however,  from  denying  the  excellence  of  Mr.  Claude's 
Defence,  and  even  from  censuring  the  passage  which  you  have  quoted. 
But  I  may  observe,  with  regard  to  this  and  other  quotations  to  the 
same  purpose,  that  they  respect  the  question  concerning  the  grounds 
of  a  lawful  secession :  whereas  the  question,  which  we  are  now  con- 
sidering is.  Whether  churches  and  their  members  that  are  already 
separated  on  sufficient  grounds,  from  any  particular  church,  may  not- 
withstanding the  continuance  of  these  grounds,  have  sacramental  com- 
munion with  that  church  ?  In  this  view,  the  greater  the  evils  which 
this  and  the  other  passages,  which  you  have  quoted,  represent  as  nec- 
essary to  justify  a  secession  from  any  particular  church,  the  more  do 
such  passages  militate  against  your  scheme  of  catholic  communion ; 
because  the  greater  these  evils  are,  on  account  of  which  you  have  just- 
ly separated  from  a  particular  church,  your  sacramental  communion 
with  that  church  continuing  in  the  same  state,  is  so  much  the  more 
manifestly  inconsistent  and  impure.  This  consideration  is  sufficient 
to  show  that  the  quotation  from  Mr.  Claude's  work  is  nothing  to  your 
purpose.  It  seems  unnecessary  to  say  any  thing  more  of  this  quota- 
tion ;  especially  considering  what  was  formerly  observed  concerning 
our  secession  from  the  Church  of  Rome.  But  the  regard  due  to  the 
character  of  the  excellent  author,  and  to  the  important  subject  of 
which  he  treats,  lead  me  to  observe  one  or  two  things  more,  in  vindi- 
cation of  this  passage. 

*  Plea,  &c,  pages  2S9,  290,  291.  t  Quick's  Synodicon,  Introduct.  page  16. 


196  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

In  the  first  place,  it  was  necessary  for  Mr.  Claude,  in  showing  the 
necessity  of  secession  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  to  set  his  argument 
in  as  strong  a  light  as  matter  of  fact  would  bear ;  and  therefore  it 
was  requisite  for  him  not  only  to  state,  in  general,  what  might  render 
secession  from  a  corrupt  church  warrantable,  but  to  show  the  pecu- 
liar weight  and  urgency  of  the  cause  of  secession  from  the  Church  of 
Rome ;  to  show  she  "  had  subverted  the  article  of  justification  by  faith 
in  Jesus  Christ ;"  and  how  grossly  she  "  had  corrupted  the  means," 
both  "  internal  and  external,  of  obtaining  grace  and  glory  ;"  to  show, 
that  though  in  respect  of  her  acknowledgment  of  the  Scriptures, — of 
the  Trinity  and  other  heads  of  christian  doctrine,  and  in  respect  of  the 
godly,  who  may  still  be  within  the  pale  of  her  communion,  she  may, 
in  a  lax  sense,  be  called  a  church  of  Christ ;  yet  in  respect  of  her 
damnable  doctrine,  and  habitually  corrupt  administration,  she  is  rather 
to  be  accounted  a  synagogue  of  Satan.  But  from  the  enormity  of 
corruption  which  in  the  case  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  rendering  seces- 
sion from  her  peculiarly  necessary,  it  does  not  follow  that  a  less  de- 
gree of  corruption  in  any  particular  church,  obstinately  persisted  in, 
and  openly  justified^  after  the  ordinary  means  of  reclaiming  her  have 
been  used,  may,  in  no  case,  render  secession  necessary.  There  is  a 
greater  necessity  of  withdrawing  from  tlte  communion  of  an  Arian  or 
Socinian  church  than  there  is  of  withdrawing  from  the  Church  of 
Rome  itself;  yet  we  may  not  infer  from  thence,  that  we  might  have 
Rafely  continued  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  In  like  manner,  notwith- 
standing the  greater  necessity  of  secession  from  the  Church  of  Rome, 
than  from  another  church  less  corrupt,  yet  it  will  not  follow  that  we 
may  safely  continue  in  the  communion  of  the  latter.  In  the  second 
place,  when  Mr.  Claude  says,  "  That  the  Limbus  of  the  ancient  fathers, 
the  local  descent  of  Christ  to  hell,  the  distinction  between  presbyters 
and  bishops  by  Divine  right,  and  the  observation  of  lent,"  would  not 
have  caused  our  separation  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  he  is  to  be  un- 
derstood as  speaking  of  the  state  of  things  at  the  rise  of  the  Reforma- 
tion. These  errors  and  superstitions  were  not  the  gravamina  prce- 
cipua,  the  evils  that  were  first  attended  to,  and  chiefly  insisted  on  by 
the  Reformers ;  such  as  the  merit  of  good  works,  the  Pope's  indul- 
gences, the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  unwritten  tradition,  the  worship  of 
saints,  purgatory,  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope.  This  is  the  obvious 
meaning  of  Mr.  Claude's  expression,  which  is  that  these  errors  and  su- 
perstitions were  not  the  things  that  actually  had  such  influence  as  to  ef- 
rect  a  rupture*  of  communion.  But  the  case  was  difi'erent,  after  our 
ancestors  had  attained  further  knowledge  of  the  scripture  doctrines,  in 
opposition  to  the  error  and  superstitions  mentioned  in  this  passage  of 
Mr.  Claude's  Defence,  and  after  they  had  adopted  those  doctrines  as 
articles  of  their  confession  and  testimony.     In  that  case,  they  could  not 

*  Qu'n'  alloient  pas  jusque  a  pouvoir  causer  une  rupture  de  communion. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  197 

consistently  have  had  sacramental  communion  with  such  as  openly  pro- 
fessed and  maintained  those  errors  and  superstitions.  Mr.  Claude  says, 
in  the  same  treatise,  "  That  the  obligation  that  lies  upon  the  members 
of  the  same  particular  church  to  hold  communion  with  those,  with 
whom  they  are  externally  bound,  is  not  without  its  bounds  and  mea- 
sures :  we  are  joined  together  under  certain  conditions."  According 
to  this  doctrine  of  Mr.  Claude,  when  the  declared  conditions  of  sacra- 
mental commmunion  in  a  particular  visible  church  are  no  other  than 
such  doctrine  and  order  as  is  justly  deduced  from  the  scripture,  no  avow- 
ed and  obstinate  opposer  of  any  article  of  that  doctrine  or  order  can 
reasonably  expect,  that  she  will  admit  him  to  her  communion  ;  because, 
as  Mr.  Claude  observes,  the  members  are  joined  together  under  certain 
conditions. 

§  66.  Alex.  What  shall  we  say  to  a  public  deed  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland,  placing  church  communion  explicitly  upon  principles  com- 
mon to  the  Reformed  Churches  ?  It  is  an  act  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, entitled.  Act  concerning  the  receiving  of  strangers  into  church  com- 
munion, and  baptising  their  children;  passed  May,  lUl.  This  act 
directs  all  ministers  to  show  all  tenderness  to  persons  educated  in  other 
Protestant  churches,  who  have  come,  or  may  come  to  reside  in  Britian, 
when  they  apply  for  the  benefit  of  sealing  ordinances  ;  and  particularly, 
when  such  strangers  being  free  from  scandal,  and  professing  their  faith 
and  obedience  to  him,  shall  desire  baptism  to  their  children,  to  comply 
with  their  desire,  upon  their  engaging  to  educate  their  children  in  the 
fear  of  God,  and  in  the  knowledge  of  the  principles  of  the  Reformed 
Protestant  Churches. 

This  Act  was  passed  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  strangers  into  their 
communion  ;  they  continuing  strangers,  and  not  accounting  themselves 
plenary  members  of  the  Church  of  Scotland.  For,  about  the  reception 
of  a  person  wishing  to  become  such  member,  and  giving  due  satisfac- 
tion as  to  his  principles  and  character,  there  could  be  no  scruple  in  her 
ministers,  and  no  necessity  of  an  Act  of  the  General  Assembly,  to  se- 
cure due  tenderness.  Men  are  not  apt  to  be  harsh  in  their  ireatment 
of  decent  applicants  for  admission  into  their  church.  This  act  contem- 
plated and  provided  for  the  reception  of  such  strangers  into  habitual 
communion.  It  distinctly  specifies  their  residing  in  the  country  as 
strangers.  It  does  not  contemplate  a  case  of  extraordinary  and  t7^an- 
sient  fellowship. 

In  order  to  this  regular  habitual  church  communion,  it  does  not  re- 
quire of  these  strangers  an  approbation  of  all  or  any  of  the  peculiari- 
ties of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  but  simply  a  christian  character,  and 
a  promise  to  educate  their  children,  not  according  to  the  standards  of 
the  Church  of  Scotland ;  but  according  to  the  principles  of  the  reform- 
ed Protestant  religion.  So  that  from  this  act  it  appears  that  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  at  that  time,  had  communion  with  strangers,  who 
did  not  even  pretend  to  join  that  church  as  complete  members  ;   and 


198  .  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

required  nothing  as  a  term  of  full  communion  with  her,  but  what  was 
common  to  the  principles  of  the  Reformed  Protestant  religion ;  and 
that  a  member  of  any  reformed  church  in  any  part  of  the  world,  not 
acting  unworthy  of  her  profession,  was  entitled,  upon  that  ground, 
to  an  equal  participation  in  her  sealing  ordinances  with  her  own  mem- 
bers. 

RuF.  In  order  that  I  may  understand  your  remarks  on  this  act  of 
the  General  Assembly,  I  wish  to  hear  your  answer  to  two  questions. 
One  is,  What  are  the  peculiarities  in  the  principles  to  which  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Church  of  Scotland  profess  adherence  different  from  the 
principles  of  the  reformed  Protestant  rehgion  ?  For  my  own  part,  I 
am  ignorant  of  such  peculiarities,  and  I  know  that  it  has  been  usually 
stated,  as  the  ground  of  the  Church  of  Scotland's  dissent  from  the 
Church  of  England,  that  the  profession  of  the  latter,  with  regard  to 
prelacy  and  ceremonies  in  religious  worship,  is  different  from  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  reformed  churches.  That  the  principles  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland  are  nothing  different  from  those  of  the  reformed  churches 
appears  from  the  view  we  have  taken  of  the  harmony  of  their  confes- 
sions. Churches  may  have  different  formularies  without  any  real  dif- 
ference in  doctrine,  worship,  discipline,  or  government.  It  is  neither 
said,  nor  necessarily  implied,  in  the  Assembly's  Act,  that  ministers 
were  bound  to  admit  strangers,  who  publicly  professed  a  determined 
opposition,  in  any  of  these  respects,  to  the  principles  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland. 

The  other  questions  is,  How  a  person  can  be  received  into  regular, 
habitual,  full  communion  with  any  church,  and  to  an  equal  participa- 
tion with  the  members  in  her  seahng  ordinances,  and  yet  not  be  a 
member  of  that  church  ?  In  the  late  disputes  between  Great  Britain 
and  the  United  States,  we  heard  a  great  many  florid  harangues  about 
extirpation,  and  about  the  necessity  which  persons  are  under  of  re- 
maining aliens  in  any  other  country  than  that  which  gave  them  birth. 
But  the  opinion,  that  christians,  not  liable  to  censure  either  in  profes- 
sion or  practice,  should  remain  aliens  or  strangers,  and  not  complete 
members,  in  any  part  of  the  christian  church,  where  they  have  a  stated 
residence,  and  are  admitted  to  sealing  ordinances,  appears  to  me  new 
and  strange  doctrine  indeed.  It  is  true,  they  are  called  strangers  in 
the  Act  of  the  Assembly :  but  this  seems  only  to  respect  the  circum- 
stance of  their  being  newly  arrived  in  Britain  from  some  foreign  coun- 
try ;  or  it  may  be  said,  with  respect  to  their  (iiaracter  rather  in  the 
state  than  in  the  church,  in  which  there  is  neither  Barbarian,  Scythian, 
bond  nor  free. 

I  cannot  say  I  see  what  necessity  there  was  for  this  Act  of  the  As- 
sembly ;  as  I  know  of  no  particular  dispute  between  the  Church  of 
Scotland  and  the  reformed  churches  on  the  continent.  Only  it  seems 
probable  that  it  was  occasioned  by  the  great  resort,  at  that  time,  of 
the  French  refugees  to  Britain  as  well  as  to  other  Protestant  countries  : 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFCJS.  199 

and  it  is  well  known  how  agreeable  the  reformed  Church  of  France  had 
once  been,  in  doctrine  and  discipline,  to  the  Church  of  Scotland. 

I  may  add,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  act  allowing  ministers  to  ad- 
mit to  their  sacramental  communion  any  avowed  and  obstinate  enemy 
to  Scotland's  covenanted  Reformation. 

§  67.  Alex.  Any  answer,  that  I  could  give  to  your  questions,  would 
be  only  a  repetition  of  what  has  been  already  said  concerning  the  con- 
fessions of  the  reformed  churches,  concerning  the  import  of  communi- 
cating with  a  particular  church,  and  concerning  church  hospitality ; 
all  which  particulars  have  been  already  proposed  to  your  consideration. 
But  I  may  quote  a  few  words  of  Mr.  Dunlop,  an  eminent  minister  of 
the  Church  of  Scotland,  in  his  preface  to  the  Collection  of  Confessions. 
"  There  is,"  says  he  "no  act  of  the  Assembly,  nor  even  of  any  inferior 
church  judicature,  establishing  the  confession  of  faith  a  term  of  chris- 
tian communion,  and  requiring  an  assent  thereto  from  christian  parents, 
in  order  to  their  being  admitted  to  all  the  privileges  of  church  com- 
munion :  and  further,  that  no  person,  that  acquaints  a  minister,  that 
he  is  of  a  contrary  opinion  to  some  articles  of  the  Confession  of  Faith ; 
and  that  he  can  neither  profess  his  own  belief  of  them,  nor  engage  to 
educate  his  children  in  them,  would  therefore  be  denied  access  to  the 
sacrament  of  baptism."  Such  were  the  views  and  practice  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  so  early  as  the  year  1*719,  when  Mr.  Dunlop's  pre- 
face was  published. 

RuF.  Notwithstanding  the  eminence  of  Mr.  Dunlop,  as  a  minister 
and  writer,  I  cannot  see  how  an  admission  of  persons  to  sealing  ordi- 
nances, who  refuse  their  assent  to  some  articles  of  the  confession,  is 
consistent  with  the  act  of  the  Assembly  approving  it.  For,  according 
to  that  act,  the  confession  is  received  and  adopted,  not  only  as  judged 
to  be  most  orthodox  and  grounded  on  the  word  of  God,  but  as  a  prin- 
cipal part  of  the  intended  uniformity  in  religion,  and  as  a  special 
means  for  the  more  effective  suppression  of  errors  and  heresies.  It  is 
obvious,  that  the  Confession  cannot  answer  these  important  ends,  while 
this  mode  of  admission  to  sacramental  communion  obtains ;  for,  if  one 
person  be  admitted  to  full  communion  without  assenting  to  some  arti- 
cles of  the  Confession,  another  person  may  be  admitted  without  assent- 
ing to  others ;  a  third  cannot  be  refused  the  same  indulgence,  nor  can 
it  be  consistently  refused  to  a  fourth,  a  fifth,  or  to  any  number  that  may 
desire  it.  On  this  plan,  the  confession  can  be  no  means  either  of  keep- 
ing error  out  of  the  church,  or  of  promoting  uniformity  of  religious 
sentiment  among  her  members.  Mr.  Dunlop's  mode  of  admission  to 
sealing  ordinances,  is  also  inconsistent  with  the  solemn  declaration 
which  every  minister  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  makes  at  his  ordina- 
tion, that  he  sincerely  owns  and  believes  the  whole  doctrine  contained 
in  the  Confession  of  Faith  ;  and  still  more  with  the  engagement  that  he 
comes  under  at  the  same  time,  to  maintain  the  same  whole  doctrine  to 
the  utmost  of  his  power.     Nothing  but  the  abominable  casuistry  of  the 


200  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

Jesuits  can  pretend  to  reconcile  such  a  profession  and  engagement  of 
a  minister  of  the  gospel,  with  his  admiting  to  full  communion  a  person 
who  had  plainly  told  him,  that  there  were  some  articles  of  that  Confes- 
sion, which  he  neither  believed  himself,  nor  would  teach  his  children 
to  believe ;  articles  which  he  utterly  rejected.  Common  sense  and 
common  honesty  would  say,  that,  in  doing  so,  a  minister  is  rather  be- 
traying and  giving  up  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession  to  its  adversaries, 
than  maintaining  it. 

After  all,  it  may  be  allowed,  that  what  Mr.  Dunlop  describes  in 
the  words  which  you  have  quoted  was,  at  the  time  when  his  preface 
vras  written,  the  practice  of  too  many  in  the  established  church  of 
Scotland,  which  was  then  far  gone  in  defection.  ''  Purity  of  doc- 
trines," says  a  faithful  witness  who  was  a  minister  of  that  church  at 
the  same  time  with  Dunlop,  ''has  been  the  privilege  and  blessing  of- 
this  beyond  many  of  her  sister  churches.  But  some  of  her  present 
circumstances  render  her  condition  more  hazardous  and  susceptible  of 
defection  than  heretofore  she  was  wont  to  be.  It  is  vain  to  think  of 
preserving  the  purity  of  religion  in  confessions  and  other  standards, 
though  they  should  remain  untouched,  while  some  sow  tares,  and 
others  sleep  ;  while  some,  by  their  bold  and  presumptuous  meddling, 
corrupt^  its  truth ;  and  others,  through  negligence,  the  love  of  ease 
and  other  biases,  overlook  all ;  and  few  make  it  their  business  to  pre- 
serve and  express  its  power.  It  is  known,  that,  of  late  years,  a  root 
of  bitterness,  sprung  up  among  ourselves,  instead  of  being  stubbed 
up,  has  been  but  tenderly  cropt ;  a  procedure  by  which  its  growth  and 
spread  have  been  promoted."*  This  author  alludes  to  the  procedure 
of  the  General  Assembly  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Simson,  professor  of  di- 
vinity in  Glasgow,  a  few  years  before. 

Alex.  We  must  now  come  to  a  conclusion  of  our  review  of  the 
history  of  church  communion  ;  which,  I  hope,  has  been  instructive. 

§  68.  RuF.  It  appears,  that  in  proportion  as  any  Church  of  Christ 
was  studying  faithfulness  in  adhering  to  the  public  scriptural  profes- 
sion of  her  faith ;  in  judicially  asserting  Divine  truth,  and  condemn- 
ing the  opposite  errors,  and  in  holding  fast  what  she  had  attained, 
she  declined  sacramental  communion  with  such  as  obstinately  adhered 
to  any  opinion  or  practice  contrary  to  her  public  profession.  So  did 
the  ancient  church ;  so  did  the  Reformed  Church  in  France,  in  the 
beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century  ;  so  did  the  Church  of  Scotland 
in  her  purest  times.  On  the  contrary,  they  who  opposed  the  public 
profession  of  the  church  in  any  of  its  scriptural  articles  have  still 
pleaded  for  a  syncretism  or  lax  communion.  Witness  the  Arians, 
who  continually  upbraided  the  orthodox  with  the  naiTowness  of  their 
terms  of  communion.     The  Arian  leaders  pretended  that  the  word 

*  The  Trust ;  a  sermon  at  the  opening  of  the  synod  of  Merse  and  Teviotdale  in 
the  year  1721. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  201 

HOMOOUSios  or  consubstantial,  should  not  be  used  in  the  church's  pro- 
fession concerning  Christ's  Divinity;  because  it  was  an  occasion  of 
stumbling  to  the  weak  ;  and  was  not  found  in  the  scripture  :  and  in- 
sisted, that  all  should  be  admitted  to  communion,  who  would  acknow- 
ledge that  the  Son  was  not  unlike  the  Father.*  Witness  the  Soci- 
nians,  who  as  Dr  Owen,  in  his  inquiry  into  the  original  constitution 
of  the  christian  church,  observes,  under  a  pretence  of  forbearance,  love 
and  mutual  toleration,  do  offer  us  the  communion  of  their  churches ; 
wherein  there  is  some  what  of  order  and  discipline  commendable  ; 
yet,  says  he,  it  is  unlawful  to  join  in  church  communion  with  them  on 
account  of  their  pernicious  errors.  Witness  the  Arminians  in  Hol- 
land, who  declared  their  willingness  to  hold  sacramental  communion 
with  the  Socinians  on  account  of  their  allowing  a  dissent  from  the  So- 
cinain  creed,  and  their  resolution  to  have  no  sacramental  communion 
with  a  church  that  disallowed  a  dissent  from  her  public  profession. 
It  is  unlawful,  said  they,  to  live  mth  such  as  brethren.  They  said,  it 
was  Satan  that  first  persuaded  men  to  make  confessions  abo.ut  things 
not  precisely  necessary  to  be  known  and  believed,  for  the  sake  of  re- 
taining purity ;  and  further,  they  avowed,  that  the  things  necessary 
to  be  known  and  believed,  are  very  few.f 

Witness  the  established  Church  of  England  retaining  in  her  com- 
munion Whiston  and  Clark,  who  denied  the  scripture  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity ;  and  many  who  teach  Arminian  and  other  errors  contrary  to 
her  own  articles  :  Witness  the  established  Church  of  Scotland  in  that 
state  of  declension  in  which  she  has  continued  since  her  Erastian  set- 
tlement at  the  Revolution  in  1688  ;  holding  sacramental  communion 
with  Episcopalians,  Independents  and  other  sectarians ;  retaining  in 
her  communion,  as  public  teachers,  Arminians  and  Socinians,  against 

*  Valens  et  Arsacius  eccleseise  pacem  obtineri  posse  contendebant  sine  ullafidei 
mutatione,  modo  Toces  qiigedam  tollerenter,  quae  infirmis  (ut  ipsi  aiebaut)  errant 
offendiculo,  viz,  ousia,  homomcsia,  hupostasis :  prgesertim  quutn  istse  voces  autolexei 
in  sacra  scriptura  non  reperiuntur.  Abrogato  consuhstantialis  vocabulo,  substitue- 
runt  vocabulum  similis  et  anathema  dixerunt  omnibus  dicentibus  Eilium  esse  dis- 
similem  Patri.    Forbesii  Instructionibus  histor.,  page  4. 

t  Primum  suadat  satanas  confessiones  de  rebus  non  praecise  scitu  ac  creditu  nec- 
eesariis  fieri  puritatis  retinendse  causa.  n    ■,     -n 

The  following  sentiments  are  taken  from  the  preface  to  the  Apology  of  the  Ke- 
monstrants.  Dissensio,  say  they,  sententiarum  concordiam  non  turbabit.  Pax 
vera,  quoe  in  animorum  conjunctione  sita  est,  constare  ibi  non  potest,  ubi  libertas 
dissentiendi,  et  libera  ac  modesta  dissensionis  professio  locum  non  habet.  Error 
veniam  et  commiseration  em  meretur :  impietas  odium  et  pcenam.  Errantes  nus- 
quam  e  coelo  proscribit  Deus,  impias  ubique.  Amemus,  complectamur,  exoecule- 
mur  eos,  quos  hactenus  sectoe  pene  omnes  implacabiliter  oderunt,  fugarunt,  pro- 
scripserunt,  et  omni  malorum  genere  affecerunt.  Ex  adversp,  volumus  damnari  et 
fugi  sectas  istas,  ubi  omnia  pene  licent  prseterquam  dissentire;  ubi  fratres  et  col- 
legse  evissima  ex  causa,  sibi  invicem,  superbis  denunciationibus  coelum  et  mferos 
decermmt.  Non  licet  nobis  cum  istis  vivere  ut  fratribus.  These  who  are  here 
said  to  be  hated  and  proscribed  by  almost  all  other  sects,  and  who,  accordmg  to 
these  apologists,  ought  to  be  embraced  with  the  most  endearing  affection,  can  be 
no  other,  says  Triglandius ,  than  the  Socinians.    Antapologise  prsefatio. 


202  ALEXANDER  AND  KUFUS. 

whose  errors  she  was  bound  by  her  solemn  covenant  engagement  to 
contend  and  testify.  Witness  the  Arminian,  Baxterian  and  Hopkin- 
sian  errors,  which  now  attend  the  fashionable  practice  of  catholic  com- 
munion ill  the  United  States.*  Witness  the  broad, basis  which  is  laid 
for  a  catholic  religious  communion  in  the  writings  of  some,  who  under 
the  name  of  christian  ministers,  are  advocates  for  deism.  "  Unity  of 
sentiment,"  says  one  of  that  fraternity,  ''suits  not  the  Divine  plan  of 
man's  moral  improvement.  A  diversity  of  religion  is  better  adapted 
both  for  mankind  in  general  and  for  individuals.  The  most  absurd 
and  superstitious  religions  promote  the  common  end  of  all  religion, 
peace  of  conscience  and  the  practice  of  virtue.  All  religions  lead  to 
happiness,  though  some  by  a  shorter,  safer,  and  less  difficult  road 
than  others,  "f 

§  69.  Alex.  I  cannot  say  that  I  esteem  the  zealots  of  any  party. 
The  strenuous  advocate  for  a  liturgy,  and  the  strenuous  enemy  of  it, 
are  in  danger  of  being  alike  estranged  from  the  worship  of  God.  The 
case  is  the  same  with  the  hot  contenders  for  and  against  the  singing  of 
any  other  psalms  in  public  and  solemn  worship,  than  those  which  we 
have  in  the  Old  Testament.  Such  also  is  the  case  of  the  hot  contend- 
ers either  for  or  against  kneeling  at  the  Lord's  table  ;  either  for  or 
against  any  particular  form  of  church  government,  whether  it  be  pres- 
bytery, prelacy,  or  independency ;  either  for  or  against  keeping  Christ- 
mas or  Good  Friday ;  either  for  or  against  ministers  wearing  a  sur- 
plice, when  they  perform  divine  service.  Anxiety  about  such  pecu- 
liarities becomes  a  substitue  for  the  power  of  personal  religion.  Many 
lay  more  stress  upon  such  party-colored  threads  of  ecclesiastical  fac- 
tion, than  upon  the  bond  of  their  union  in  Christ.  We  may  say  of 
these  opposite  things,  as  the  apostle  said  of  circumcision,  that  neither 
the  one  nor  the  other  is  any  thing,  but  keeping  the  commandments 
of  God. 

RuF.  What  would  you  say  to  one  who  should  assert,  that  the  case 
of  the  hot  contenders  for  the  worship  of  Jeroboam's  calves,  or  against 
the  changes  which  he  made  of  the  day  of  the  passover,  and  in  the 

*  Some  are  offended  at  the  use  of  such  terms  denoting  certain  systems  or  com- 
binations of  opinions,  for  two  reasons  :  one  is,  that  they"  prejudice  people  against 
certain  opiuions  which,  before  any  consideration  of  them,  persons  are  led  by  these 
names  to  consider  as  erroneous.  But  we  may  as  well  object  to  the  names  which 
are  given  to  actual  sins ;  because  each  of  them  implies  the  notion  of  moral  evil : 
and  some  of  these  denominations  are  taken  from  persons,  as  Simony.  This  pre- 
sumption instead  of  hindering,  may  invite  us  to  the  examination  of  the  particular 
actions  or  opinions  to  which  they  are  applied.  The  other  reason  against  the  use 
of  these  names  is,  that  they  may  be,  and  are,  sometimes  misapplied.  But  this 
abuse  is  common  to  these  with  other  general  names :  and  the  error  is  to  be  cor- 
rected by  accurate  definitions  and  enumerations  of  the  particulars  included  in  the 
signification  of  such  general  name.  If  it  is  asked,  how  these  particulars  are  to  be 
ascertained  ?  we  answer,  just  as  the  particulars  included  in  the  meaniug  of  other 
general  terms  are  ascertained,  by  dictionaries,  grammars,  history,  &c. 

t  Sketches  from  modern  foreign  writers,  by  Dr.  Erskine,  page  64. 


ALEXANDER  AND   RUFUS.  203 

priesthood,  was  much  the  same  with  the  case  of  the  hot  contenders 
against  these  things  ;  and  that  the  hot  contenders  for  the  traditions  of 
the  Pharisees,  and  the  hot  contenders  against  them  were  alike, 

Alex.  I  would  say  that  the  assertion  is  most  false.  For  the  op- 
posite cases  of  contending  for  and  contending  against  a  manifest  breach 
of  God's  commandment  cannot  be  alike.  It  was  very  wicked  in  the 
Abiezerites  to  plead  for  Baal.  And  it  would  not  be  much  less  so,  to 
plead  for  the  idolatry  of  Jeroboam,  who  made  Israel  to  sin,  or  for 
those  traditions  by  which  the  Pharisees  made  God's  commandment  of 
no  effect. 

RuF.  All  human  additions  to  the  ordinances  of  God's  worship  are 
manifest  breaches  of  his  commandment.  But  such  are  the  additions 
you  mentioned ;  the  superstitious  observation  of  holy  days ;  kneeling 
at  the  Lord's  table ;  singing  any  other  psalms,  in  solemn  and  public 
worship,  than  those  given  in  that  form  by  the  immediate  inspiration  of 
the  Holy  Spirit ;  humanly  devised  forms  of  church  government,  such 
as  prelacy  and  independency.  It  is  right  to  contend  against  such 
things,  and  wrong  to  contend  for  them.  There  may  indeed  be  much 
wrong  in  the  manner  of  men's  contending  against  these  evils.  But, 
even  in  that  case,  the  difference  between  pleading  for  a  good  and 
pleading  for  a  bad  cause  remains ;  and  we  cannot  say  theyareboth  alike, 
without  bearing  false  witness  against  our  neighbor.  We  have  an  il- 
lustrious example  of  this  truth  in  the  dispute  between  Job  and  his 
friends ;  a  dispute  which  was  supported,  on  both  sides,  with  warmth, 
and  even  asperity.  There  was  much  reprehensible  in  the  speeches  of 
Job,  as  well  as  in  those  of  his  friends ;  and  there  was  much  excellent 
doctrine  in  their  discourses,  as  well  as  in  his.  But  the  two  parties  were 
far  from  being  alike  as  to  the  matter  in  debate  ;  which  was  determined 
by  God,  the  J  udge  of  all,  in  Job's  favor,  Job  xlii :  7.  In  the  days  of  our 
fathers,  who  were  the  strenuous  opposers  of  the  particular  evils  you 
have  mentioned  ?  They  are  such  men  as  Knox,  Cartwright,  Welsh, 
the  two  Melvils,  Calderwood,  Rutherford,  Gillespie,  Cargil,  Cam- 
eron, Renwick,  and  many  other  eminent  lights  in  the  church  of  God. 
Did  these  worthies  find  that  they  were  in  danger  of  being  estranged 
from  the  worship  of  God  in  Spirit  and  in  truth,  by  an  honest  upright 
zeal  against  the  prevalence  of  such  evils  as  you  have  mentioned?  This 
cannot  be  believed  consistently  with  any  due  regard  to  historical  evi- 
dence. 

In  the  present  day,  when  some,  in  their  united  capacity,  aiming  at 
faithfulness  in  adhering  to  their  public  scriptural  profession,  have, 
with  all  plainness  and  candor,  laid  before  their  brethren  the  obstruc- 
tions which  they  desire  to  have  removed  in  order  to  sacramental 
communion,  they  receive  no  other  satisfaction  than  that  of  hearing, 
that  the  matters  of  complaint  are  not  essential ;  that  the  articles  contend- 
ed for,  as  advances  in  reformation,  are  only  doubtful  opinions,  or  the 
colored  threads  of  ecclesiastical  faction ;   that  a  general  profession  of 


204  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

the  essentials  of  Christianity  is  sufficient  to  form  the  basis  of  church 
communion ;  that  the  churches  complained  of  are  churches  of  Christ ; 
that  they  have  communion  with  Christ ;  that  they  have  his  Spirit. 
The  complainers  have  been  abundantly  explicit  in  giving  reasons 
why  they  judge  the  matters  in  question  to  be  highly  important  and 
necessary  to  the  glory  of  God  and  the  welfare  of  souls.  But  these 
reasons  cannot  obtain  a  hearing ;  for  they  are  reasons,  it  is  cried,  about 
what  is  not  essential,  and  therefore  must  be  mere  babbling.  Such 
treatment  in  a  worldy  business,  in  which  there  are  any  persons  who 
deem  themselves  much  interested,  would  be  generally  allowed  to  be 
unreasonable  and  unjust;,  And  why  is  not  the  same  treatment  ac- 
knowledged to  be  so  in  spiritual  things  ?  The  reason  seems  to  be,  that 
the  spirit  of  professors  in  this  generation  is  the  spirit  of  Gallio,  which 
cares  for  none  of  these  things. 

Alex.  I  wonder  to  hear  you  speak  so,  Rufus.  I  have  not  heard 
of  any  period  in  which  more  zeal  for  religion  was  displayed,  than  the 
present ;  particularly,  for  the  circulatio»n  of  the  scriptures,  and  for 
having  the  gospel  sent  to  the  heathen  nations.  Societies  are  every- 
where formed,  and  liberal  contributions  made  for  these  objects. 

Rup.  I  would  by  no  means  detract  from  undertakings,  the  objects 
of  which  are  so  laudable  and  important.  It  is  hoped,  that  their  effects 
will  be  beneficial  to  thousands.  But  the  formation  of  new  societies 
for  sending  ministers  to  the  heathen,  is  so  far  exceptionable,  as  it 
supposes  or  implies  that  the  church  courts  which  Christ  has  certainly 
authorised  and  appointed  to  make  such  missions,  are  not  competent 
or  sufficient  for  that  business.  I  may  further  observe,  that  if  people 
rest  in  the  things  you  have  mentioned,  without  any  reformation  of  the 
church  in  doctrine,  worship  and  government  j  if,  while  they  are  active 
in  these  projects,  they  grow  more  secure  and  insensible  of  the  judg- 
ments of  God  impending  over  the  churches  at  this  day ;  if  testimonies 
and  remonstrances  against  prevailing  errors  and  corruptions  are  treat- 
ed with  more  contempt  than  before,  we  have  no  reason  to  consider 
the  present  generation  of  professors  as  in  a  reforming  state.  The 
Lord's  anger  is  not  turned  away ;  but  his  hand  is  stretched  out  still. 
It  is  one  of  the  vain  imaginations,  which  have  a  baneful  influence  on 
the  conduct  both  of  individuals  and  societies,  that  they  may  venture  to 
compound  with  their  Maker ;  presuming,  that  while  they  offer  him 
many  services,  he  will  spare  their  beloved  idols^  and  suffer  them  to  go 
on  in  some  tresspasses  to  which  they  have  been  long  accustomed,  and 
which  in  the  fashionable  language  of  the  present  times,  consists  with 
holding  the  essentials  of  morality  and  religion.  Formerly  the  errone- 
ous labored  to  defend  their  peculiar  opinion  or  practice  with  some 
color  of  reasoning.  But  now  they  have  a  summary  way  of  evading 
all  censure  or  reprehension ;  namely,  by  professing  an  adherence  to 
the  essentials  of  religion ;  and  by  representing  all  who  attempt  to  re- 
fute their  errors  as  dealers  in  toys  and  baubles.     But  is  not  this  meth- 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  205 

od  like  the  way  of  those  who  make  a  mock  of  sin  ?  If  the  matters 
in  question  be  at  all  sinful,  the  representation  of  them  as  trivial,  tends 
to  harden  those  who  are  saying  with  regard  to  their  own  practice  of 
such  things,  We  have  not  sinned.  God  has  undoubtedly  a  controversy 
with  such  and  with  all  their  abettors.  "Thou  sayest,  Because  I  am  in- 
nocent surely  his  anger  shall  turn  from  me.  Behold  I  will  plead  with 
thee,  because  thou  sayest,  I  have  not  sinned,"  Jerem.  ii.  35. 

Alex.  The  body  of  Christ  is  lacerated  and  mangled  when  christians 
are  split  into  sects.     Is  there  no  remedy  for  so  great  an  evil? 

RuF.  Yes;  the  apostle  directs  us  to  one  in  these  solemn  and  impres- 
sive words ;  "I  beseech  you,  brethren,  by  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  that  ye  all  speak  the  same  things,  and  that  there  be  no  divisi- 
on among  you;  but  that  ye  be  perfectly  joined  together  in  the  same 
mind,  and  in  the  same  judgment."  That  agreement  in  the  public  pro- 
fession of  the  doctrine,  worship,  discipline  and  government,  according 
to  the  word  of  God,  may  be  attained  by  his  church  is  evident  from  the 
duty  enjoined  in  this  and  other  passages  of  scripture:  1  Corinth,  i.  10; 
2  Corinth,  xiii.  11 ;  Philip,  i.  27;  ii.  2  ;  1  Pet.  iii.  8;  from  the  promise 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  Teacher  of  believers:  John  xvi.  13  ;  from  the 
promise  of  such  agreement,  Jerem.  xxxii.  39 ;  Zephan.  iii.  9 ;  Isai.  Iii. 
8;  from  what  was  actually  attained  in  the  primitive  church;  Acts  ii. 
42  ;  iii.  32 :  from  the  harmony  of  the  confessions  of  the  reformed  church- 
es; and  from  the  unanimity  that  we  sometimes  see  actually  attained 
in  particular  churches  and  congregations;  where  people  are  stirred  up 
to  much  diligence  in  reading  and  hearing  the  word  and  in  prayer; 
and  are  acquainted  with  the  power  of  godliness. 

While  parties  continue  to  make  public  professions  of  religion  that 
are  contradictory  to  one  another,  it  seems  necessary  that  the  individ- 
uals of  each  party  should  have  communion  in  public  ordinances  with 
those  only  who  make  the  same  public  profession. 

1.  Because  it  is  only  with  such  that  they  can  have  real  and  sin- 
cere communion  in  public  ordinances.  For  how  can  the  ministers  or 
people  of  two  parties  have  real  communion  with  one  another  in  the 
hearing  of  the  word  preached,  while  the  one  professes  to  believe  what 
the  other  professes  to  disbelieve ;  while  the  one  considers  the  minister 
as  by  his  public  profession  shunning  to  declare  the  whole  counsel  of 
God;  and  the  other  judges  that  by  the  same  profession  he  engages  to 
declare  the  counsel  of  God  faithfully?  How  can  they  have  communion 
in  prayer  and  thanksgiving,  while  the  one  considers  that  doctrine,  worship 
or  government  as  greatly  prejudicial  or  even  pernicious  to  the  church 
of  God  which  the  other  reckons  necessary  to  her  welfare  ?  How  can 
they  pretend  to  glorify  God  with  one  mind  and  one  mouth,  while  they 
are  manifestly  of  different  minds,  and  make  different  professions? 
How  can  persons  sit  down  together  at  the  sacramental  table  as  one 
bread,  one  body,  as  making  only  one  profession,  while  they  obstinately 
persist  in  making  many  contradictory  professions  ?    It  is  indeed  dread- 


206  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

fill  mockery  of  God  for  people  to  profess  that  they  are  come  together 
to  worship  God  in  a  social  capacity,  while  they  are  making  other  pro- 
fessions which  manifestly  render  them  incapable  of  worshiping  him 
in  that  capacity. 

2.  Because,  in  the  case  supposed,  a  separate  communion  is  a  neces- 
sary mean  of  preserving  soundness  in  the  faith  and  a  pure  dispensa- 
tion of  gospel  ordinances.  It  was  on  this  account  that  the  professing 
people  of  God  under  the  Old  Testament  were  separated,  even  by  their 
civil  government,  from  all  other  nations.  But  under  the  New  Testa- 
ment dispensation  they  are  not  separated  as  a  body  politic  from 
others  ;  they  are  now  sown  among  the  people  ;  but  ecclesiastic  sep- 
aration, or  the  separation  of  the  professed  followers  and  witnesses 
of  Christ  from  such  as  refuse  to  be  reclaimed  from  their  errors  and 
corruptions,  is  an  appointed  mean  of  preserving  his  ordinances  pure 
and  entire. 

Were  each  of  the  more  evangelical  churches  faithfully  endeavoring 
to  hold  fast  what  conformity  to  the  word  of  God  they  have  attained 
in  doctrine,  worship,  discipline  and  government,  and  to  make  progress 
in  reformation ;  were  they  duly  attentive  to  testimonies  that  have 
been  exhibited  against  remaining  errors  and  corruptions,  we  would 
have  reason  to  hope  that  offences  would  soon  be  removed,  difference 
in  doctrine  and  in  order  would  cease.  The  union  of  the  churches,  and 
sacramental  communion,  would  follow  of  course. 

Alex.  In  your  opinion,  then,  the  sacramental  communion  of  the 
church  ought  to  be  suspended,  till  they  come  to  be  of  one  mind  in 
every  point  of  doctrine  and  order. 

BuF.  I  am  indeed,  that  while  any  scriptural  article  of  the  public 
profession  of  one  church  is  openly  and  obstinately  denied  by  another, 
the  former  ought  not  to  have  sacramental  communion  with  the  latter. 
Yet  these  churches  have  visible  union  and  communion  with  one  anoth- 
er, so  far  as  they  agree  with  one  another  and  with  the  word  of  God  in 
profession  and  practice. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  207 


A  NOTE  ON  §  61,  PAGE  1S4. 

How  far  Dr.  Owen  was  from  agreeing  to  the  scheme  of  what  is  termed  catholic 
communion^  will  ai)pear  from  the  following  short  abstract  of  his  answer  to  two 
questions.  The  first  of  these  questions  is,  Whether  persons  who  have  engaged 
to  reformation  and  another  way  of  divine  worship,  according  to  the  word  as  they 
believe,  may  lawfully  attend  on  the  use  of  the  Common  Prayer  Book  in  divine 
worship  ? 

The  Doctor  answers  in  the  negative  for  these  reasons  : 

1.  Because  the  attendance  of  persons,  in  the  case  now  supposed,  is  contrary  to  the  general 
rule  giveu  by  the  apostle  In  Gal.  ii.  18,  If  I  build  again  the  things  that  I  destroyed,  I  niaice  my- 
self a  transgressor.  But  we  have  destroyed  this  form  of  worship;  that  Is,  we  have  omitted  it 
and  left  it  out  in  the  service  of  the  church,  as  neither  divinely  commanded  nor  tending  to  edi- 
fication. 

2.  Because  it  is  contrary  to  that  great  rule,  Whatsoever  is  not  of  faith  is  sin,  Rom.  xiv  23.  No 
man,  therefore,  can  lawfully  attend  on  this  kind  of  religious  worship,  but  he  who  judgetk  hia 
doing  so  to  be  a  duty  which  God  requireth  of  him,  and  which  it  would  be  his  sin  to  omit,  when 
he  goes  to  it. 

3.  Because  it  is  contrary  to  the  rule  delivered  ia  Mai.  1.13  14,  Ye  brought  that  which  was 
torn,  and  the  ianie,  and  the  sick,  &c.,  but  cursed  be  the  deceiver  who  hath  in  his  flock  a  male, 
and  voweth  and  sacrificeth  to  the  Lord  a  corrupt  thing.  We  are  obliged  by  all  law,  natural, 
moral  and  positive,  to  serve  God  always  with  our  best.  Wherefore,  he  that  attends  on 
this  service  avows  to  God,  that  it  is  the  best  that  he  has  :  and  if  it  be  not  so,  he  is  a  de- 
ceiver. 

4.  Because  it  is  contrary  to  that  rule.  Let  all  things  be  done  to  edifying,  1  Cor.  xiv.  26. 
For  we  testify  against  many  things  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  as  highly  prejudicial  to 
edification. 

5.  Because  it  is  inconsistent  with  that  sincerity  in  profession  that  is  required  of  us.  Our 
pubMc  conjunction  with  others,  in  the  acts  and  duties  of  religious  worship,  is  a  part  of  that 
profession  which  we  make  in  these  acts  and  duties;  and  in  this  conjunction  in  profession 
in  worship,  we  do  profess  that  it  is  such  a  conjunction  as  is  part  of  the  obedience  which 
•we  owe  to  Jesus  Christ;  a  profession  directly  contrary  to  that  which  we  make  as  dis- 
senters. 

6.  Because  such  a  practice  is,  in  many  respects,  contrary  to  the  great  rule  of  not  giving  of- 
fence ;  particularly,  it  is  a  justification  of  the  adversaries  to  the  cause  wherein  we  are  engaged, 
and  a  condemning  of  those  that  suffer  for  their  faithful  adherence  to  that  cause. 

The  second  question  is,  Whether  the  persons  before  men^ned  and  described 
may,  lawfully  and  in  a  consistency  with  their  former  principles  and  practice,  go  to 
and  receive  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  supper  in  the  parish  churches,  under 
their  present  constitution  and  administration  ? 

The  Doctor  answers,  that  they  may  not  or  cannot  do  so ; 

1.  Because,  by  their  so  doing,  they  profess  a  spiritual  incorporation  with  those  with  whom, 
or  with  that  church,  wherein  they  do  so  communicate;  namely.  That  thej'  are  one  body 
and  one  bread  with  them ;  and  that  they  all  drink  into  one  Spirit ;  while  they  do  not  esteem 
them  so  to  be. 

2.  Because  they  would  hereby,  not  only  justify  the  whole  service  of  the  liturgy,  but  particu- 
larly the  ceremonies  enjoined  to  be  used  in  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  supper  For  the 
rule  of  the  church  wherewith  they  join,  is  that  whereby  they  are  to  be  judged.  Any  abate- 
ment that  may  be  made  in  practice,  is  on  both  sides  an  unwarrantable  self-deceiving,  inconsis- 
tent with  christian  ingenuity  and  sincerity. 

3.  Because  the  posture  of  kneeling,  in  the  receiving  of  this  sacrnment,  is  a  peculiar  act  of 
religious  adoration,  which  has  no  Divine  institution  or  warrant ;  and  is,  therefore,  at  best,  an 
act  of  will-worship  not  to  be  complied  with. 

It  is  hoped,  the  reader  will  excuse  the  brevity  of  this  abstract;  as  our  limits 
would  not  permit  the  insertion  of  this  excellent  passage,  so  fully,  as  it  is  given  in 
Mr.  Rankin's  Dialogues,  from  the  2d  vol.  of  Dr.  Owen"s  Sermons. 


208  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 


APPENDIX. 


Having  lately  perused  a  performance  on  terms  of  Communion,  by- 
Robert  Hall,  A.  M.,  a  Baptist  minister,  published  in  England,  and 
several  years  ago  reprinted  in  this  country,  the  writer  of  the  preceding 
dialogues  judged  that  a  short  notice  of  this  publication  may  tend  to 
throw  further  light  on  the  nature  and  tendency  of  what  is  called  cath- 
olic or  free  communion.     This  writer  says  : 

Page  7,  "  Wherever  purity  and  simplicity  of  worship  are  violated  by  the 
heterogeneous  mixture  of  human  inventions,  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  com- 
ply witli  them  for  the  sake  of  peace ;  because  the  first  consideration  in 
every  act  of  worship,  is  its  correspondence  with  the  revealed  will  of  God, 
which  will  often  justify  us  in  declining  the  external  communion  of  a  church, 
with  which  we  cease  not  to  cultivate  a  communion  in  Spirit.  It  is  one 
thing  to  decline  a  connection  with  the  members  of  a  community  absolutely 
or  simply  because  they  belong  to  such  a  community,  and  another  to  join 
with  them  in  practices  which  we  deem  superstitious  and  erroneous." 

Remark.  The  first  of  these  sentences  contains  a  truth  v^ery  con- 
trary to  the  scheme  which  this  performance  is  meant  to  defend.  But 
the  second  tends  to  misrepresent  the  state  of  the  question ;  as  if  it 
were  a  question  about  communion  in  Spirit,  while  it  is  only  about  ex- 
ternal communion ;  and  as  if  his  opponents  did  not  approve  and  de- 
sire communion  in  Spirit  with  all  in  whom  they  can  discern  any  evi- 
dence of  love  to  the  Lord  Jesus ;  and  as  if  it  were  not  the  very  point 
in  question.  Whether  our  joining  in  sacramental  communion  (which, 
as  it  is  considered  in  this  question,  is  merely  external  communion) 
with  those  churches  and  their  members,  who  publicly  profess  adherence 
to  opinions  or  practices,  which  we  own,  by  our  public  profession,  to 
be  superstitious  and  erroneous,  be  not  both  an  external  consenting  to 
these  practices  or  opinions,  and  a  gross  inconsistency  with  our  own 
profession,  as  contrary  thereto  ?  This  writer  asserts,  that  by  sacra- 
mental communion  with  such  churches  and  their  members,  "  no  princi- 
ple is  violated,  no  practice  is  altered,  no  innovation  is  introduced  ;" 
that  is,  that  in  sacramental  communion  with  churches  persisting  obsti- 
nately in  such  erroneous  opinions  and  superstitious  practices  a  person 
makes  no  other  profession,  than  he  does  in  sacramental  communion 
with  a  church  that  testifies  in  her  public  profession  against  these  opin- 
ions and  practices.  This  assertion  ought  not  to  have  been  taken  for 
granted.  The  falsehood  of  it  is  proved,  it  is  hoped  satisfactorily,  in 
the  preceeding  dialogues. 


APPENDIX.  209 

Pages  47  and  48.  "  Let  it  be  remembered  that  the  mode  in  which  we 
are  commanded  to  exhibit  and  express  the  love  of  the  brethren,  is  the  pres- 
ervation of  union,  and  a  careful  avoidance  of  every  temper  and  practice, 
which  might  produce  alienation  and  divisoh.  When  one  part  of  Christ^s 
mystical  body  refuses  to  co-operate  with  another  in  a  principal  spiritual 
function,  such  as  communing  at  the  Lord's  table,  the  very  evil  subsists 
against  which  we  are  anxiously  guarded ;  and,  upon  the  principle  we  are 
opposing,  subsists  by  Divine  appointment/' 

Remark.  This  objection  against  the  adherence  of  a  particular 
church  to  her  own  public  scriptural  profession  as  the  rule  of  her  sac- 
ramental communion  is  very  groundless  ;  for  the  reason  why  she  re- 
fuses sacramental  communion  to  the  open  and  obstinate  opposers  of 
any  article  of  that  profession,  is  because  that  refusal  is  necessary  to 
avoid  alienation  and  division  among  her  members.  For  a  little  leaven 
leaventeh  the  wdiole  lump.  The  cause  of  alienation  and  division  sub- 
sists with  the  opposers  of  that  article  :  but  how  absurd  is  it  to  say 
that  it  subsists  with  a  particular  church,  on  account  of  her  using  the 
means  of  Divine  appointment  for  avoiding  these  evils. 

Page  48.  "Our  Saviour,  thoroughly  apprised  of  the  diversities  of  sen- 
timent, which  would  arise  among  his  followers,  was  not  deterred  by  that 
consideration  from  praying,  that  they  might  be  one." 

Remark.  As  unity  in  sentiment,  or  in  the  belief  of  Divine  truth 
is,  among  the  followers  of  Jesus,  the  foundation  of  unity  in  affection, 
so  our  Saviour  must  here  be  considered  as  praying  for  the  former  as 
well  as  for  the  latter ;  and,  consequently,  for  the  taking  away  of  the 
diversities  of  sentiment,  as  well  as  other  evils,  which  he  foresaw  would 
be  among  his  followers.  His  prayer,  therefore,  affords  a  particular 
church  great  encouragement  to  go  on  towards  perfection  in  her  sacra- 
mental communion,  endeavoring  by  all  scriptural  means  to  exclude 
diversities  of  sentiment  among  her  communicants. 

Page  49  "  To  refuse  the  communion  of  sincere  christians,  is  not  a 
natural  expression  of  christian  love;  but  so  diametrically  opposite,  that  we 
may  fairly  put  it  to  the  conscience  of  those  who  contend  for  such  a  meas- 
ure, whether  they  find  it  possible  to  carry  it  into  execution  without  an  in- 
ward struggle  ;  without  feeling  emotions  of  sorrow  and  concern  ? '' 

Remark.  Those  who  conscientiously  adhere  to  the  scripture  rule 
of  church  communion,  cannot  see  a  person  deny  an  article  of  their 
public  scriptural  profession,  without  feeling  emotions  of  sorrow  and 
concern  ;  and  the  greater  esteem  they  have  of  that  person  as  a  sincere 
christian,  their  sorrow  and  concern  are  the  greater,  both  for  the  hurt 
done  to  his  own  soul  and  to  the  church  by  his  denial  of  Divine  truth. 
They  mourn  the  evil  which  renders  it  necessary  to  decline  sacramental 
communion  with  him,  but  not  the  act  of  declining,  as  it  is  their  duty, 
conducive  to  the  good  of  the  church,  and  a  necessary  reproof  to  the 
person  himself,  which  the  Psalmist  accounted  a  kindness,  and  an  ex- 
cellent oil,  that  would  not  break  his  head. 

Pages  52.  53.  "  In  Eom.  xiv.  1,  and.xv.  1,  6,  7,  we  are  commanded  to 
14 


210  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

receive  persons  who  are  weak  in  faitli.  It  is  certain,  that  St.  Paul  means 
to  designate  by  that  appellation  sincere  though  erring  christians,  persons 
whose  organs  were  not  yet  attempered  to  the  blaze  of  gospel  light  and 
liberty,  but  who  still  clung  to  certain  legal  usages  and  distinctions,  which 
more  comprehensive  views  of  revelation  would  have  taught  them  to  dis- 
card. The  term  weak  is  employed  in  1  Corinth,  viii.  7,  to  denote  an  erro- 
neous conscience.  When  it  is  once  admitted  that  this  term  comprehends 
the  case  of  error,  it  is  not  necessary  to  evince  its  bearing  on  the  present 
controversy.  All  that  remains  is  the  assumption,  that  the  errors  and 
mistakes  to  be  tolerated  are  not  fundamental,  or  not  of  such  a  nature  as 
to  prevent  those  who  maintain  them  from  being  accepted  with  God.'^ 

Bemark.  What  is  said  in  these  passages,  in  the  14th  and  15th 
chapters  of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans,  cannot  have  any  bearing  on  the 
question  about  what  is  called  catholic  or  free  communion ;  unless  it 
means,  that  some  were  to  be  received  who  were  open  and  obstinate 
opposers  of  one  or  more  articles  of  the  public  scriptural  profession  of 
the  Church  of  Christ  at  Rome.  But  it  does  not  appear,  that  the  apos- 
tle charges  either  of  the  parties,  whose  case  is  treated  of  in  these  pas- 
sages, with  any  such  opposition.  What  the  apostle  charges  them  with 
is  not  any  sin  or  error  in  their  being  for  or  against  the  observation  of 
meats  or  days,  but  only  their  uncharitable  judging  or  censuring  each 
other  ;  an  evil,  which  he  exhorted  the  church  to  guard  against,  and 
not  to  tolerate. 

I  may  add,  that  in  the  phrase  weak  in  faith,  the  word  weak  does 
not  convey  the  same  notion  of  positive  and  culpable  error,  as  when 
the  apostle  speaks  of  the  conscience  being  weak  and  defiled,  1  Cor. 
viii.  t.  The  weak  in  faith,  are  to  be  distinguished  from  open  and  ob- 
stinate opposers  of  the  faith,  and  from  backsliders.  Hence,  the  apos- 
tle is  far  from  speaking  of  the  weak  in  faith  among  the  Romans,  as 
he  does  of  the  backsliding  Galatians. 

Pages  53.56.  "When  the  apostle  commands  christians  to  receive 
each  other,  and  enforces  that  duty  by  the  example  of  Christ,  it  surely  re- 
quires little  penetration  to  perceive,  that  the  practice  ought  to  be  commen- 
surate to  that  example,  and  that  the  precept  obliges  us  to  receive  all  whom 
Christ  has  received.  He  is  not  received,  in  the  sense  of  the  apostle,  who 
is  denied  a  reception  at  the  Lord's  table." 

Bemark.  We  are  to  distinguish  between  an  example  and  a  rule. 
In  determining  who  are  to  be  received  into  sacramental  communion, 
we  are  to  be  directed  singly  by  the  rule  of  God's  word.  The  example 
of  Christ,  with  regard  to  what  became  him,  is  absolutely  perfect.  But 
there  are  many  things  which  it  became  him  as  God,  and  as  our  Media- 
tor, to  do  which  we  cannot,  without  absurdity,  pretend  to  imitate. 
Particularly,  it  is  shown  in  the  dialogues,  that  it  is  absurd  to  suppose 
that  he  cannot,  or  that  he  does  not  grant  gracious  communion  with 
himself  to  many  with  whom  it  would  be  unwarrantable  for  us  to  join 
in  sacramental  communion.  Christ's  receiving  persons  into  real  com- 
munion with  himself,  is  an  internal  secret  transaction  j  and,  therefore, 


APPENDIX.  211 

cannot  be  a  rule  to  direct  us  in  receiving  persons  into  the  external 
communion  of  the  visible  church.  Besides  this  expression,  "  Receive 
ye  one  another,  as  Christ  also  hath  received  us  to  the  glory  of  God," 
does  not  so  properly  point  out  the  persons  whom  we  are  to  receive,  a« 
the  manner  in  which  we  are  to  receive  them.  The  apostle  had  already 
shown  what  persons  were  to  receive  one  another ;  but  he  now  calls 
their  attention  to  the  manner  in  which  every  one  should  receive  his 
brethren,  and  be  received  by  them.  They  were  to  imitate  Christ's 
manner,  not  so  much  in  receiving  others,  as  in  receiving  themselves, 
which  they  knew  by  a  blessed  experience.  As  they  had  found  that 
Christ  had  received  themselves  with  tender  affection,  in  the  way  of 
forgiving  them  and  bearing  their  burdens,  so  they  were  to  receive 
one  another.  The  apostle  then  is  not,  as  Mr.  Hall  supposes,  making 
Christ's  receiving  others  the  reason  of  their  receiving  them  ;  but 
only  that,  while  they  received  others  into  church  communion  accord- 
ing to  the  order  appointed  in  the  word  of  God,  they  were  to  imitate 
the  gracious  condescending  manner  in  which  Christ  had  received  them- 
selves. 

It  may  be  further  observed,  that  in  declining  sacramental  commun- 
ion on  account  of  eiTors  and  other  offences,  there  is  a  commendable 
imitation  of  Christ's  way  of  dealing,  in  such  cases,  with  his  people 
whom  he  receives.  For  he  often  hides  his  face,  and  withholds  the  sen- 
sible tokens  of  his  favor,  on  account  of  their  errors  and  backslidings. 
Whom  I  love,  says  he,  I  rebuke  and  chasten ;  he  zealous  therefore 
and  repent.  Believers  may  be  said  to  have  a  right  to  the  sensible 
tokens  of  his  love  ;  yet  they  are  not  to  expect  them  but  according  to 
the  order  settled  in  the  covenant  of  grace.  In  like  manner,  they  have 
a  right  to  the  Lord's  table ;  yet  they  are  not  to  be  admitted  to  it 
otherwise  than  according  to  the  order  appointed  in  the  word  of  God. 

With  regard  to  the  assertion,  that  they  are  not  received  in  the  sense 
of  the  apostle,  who  are  denied  a  reception  at  the  Lord's  table,  it  may 
be  observed,  that  while  the  term  receive  is  not  limited  to  that  recep- 
tion, there  are  degrees  of  the  privilege  meant  by  it.  A  person  may 
be  received  in  one  degree,  and  not  in  another.  One  may  be  received 
to  private  christian  intercourse,  who  is  not  yet  received  to  sacramental 
communion.  The  duty  in  general  of  receiving  others  into  christian 
communion  is  enjoined  in  this  text ;  but  in  determining  the  degree 
of  that  communion,  into  which  any  one  is  to  be  received,  we  must  also 
attend  to  other  scriptures,  which  declare  the  order  of  the  Church  of 
Christ. 

Page  54.  "  The  apostle,  after  proposing  himself  as  an  example  of  the 
renunciation  of  legal  hopes,  and  the  serious  study  of  perfection,  adds,  let 
us,  therefore,  ap  many  as  are  perfect,  as  many  as  have  obtained  correct 
and  enlarged  views  of  the  gospel,  be  thus  minded ;  and  if  in  any  thing, 
ye  are  otherwise  minded,  possessing  different  views  and  apprehensions  on 
certain  subjects,  God  will  reveal  even  this  unto  yon.  Nevertheless,  whereto 
we  have  already  attained,  let  v^  walk  hy  the  same  rule ;  let  us  mind  the  same 


212  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

thing.  Here,  the  case  of  diversity  of  sentiment,  arising  among  christians, 
is  distinctly  assumed,  and  the  proper  remedy  suggested  ;  which  is  not  the 
exercise  of  a  compulsory  power,  much  less  a  separation  of  communion ; 
but  the  ardent  pursuit  of  christian  piety,  accompanied  with  a  humble  de- 
pendence on  Divine  teaching  ;  which,  it  may  reasonably  be  expected,  will 
in  due  time  correct  the  errors  of  sincere  believers/^ 
.  Remark.  It  is  granted,  that  persons  of  different  sentiments,  con- 
cerning things  of  an  indifferent  nature,  and  concerning  points  which 
have  never  been  any  part  of  the  church's  profession  or  testimony,  and 
even  persons  defective  in  the  knowledge  of  some  articles  of  that  pro- 
fession, while  they  manifest  a  willingness  to  receive  instruction  con- 
cerning these  articles,  may  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  table.  It  is 
granted,  that  in  these  cases,  the  remedy  is  here  suggested  ;  that  the 
Lord  will  reveal  his  truth  to  his  people  more  and  more,  and  bring 
them  to  more  and  more  unanimity.  It  is  also  true,  that  their  unani- 
mity, in  apprehending  and  maintaining  the  truths  revealed  in  the  holy 
Scriptures,  will  be  imperfect ;  for  no  church  on  earth  can  say,  she  is 
already  perfect.  But  still  whatever  measure  of  unanimity  has  been 
attained  and  exhibited  in  the  profession  or  testimony  of  a  particular 
church,  ought,  according  to  this  remarkable  text,  to  be  faithfully  main- 
tained by  that  church  ;  and  no  avowed  obstinate  opposer,  of  any  one 
afticle  of  that  profession  or  testimony,  ought  to  be  admitted  to  her 
sacramental  communion.  This  passage  teaches  us,  in  the  first  place, 
that  this  unanimity  is  attained,  not  by  any  compulsory  power,  but  by 
the  teaching  of  the  word  and  Spirit  of  God  :  and  in  the  second  place, 
that  the  discipline  of  the  church  ought  to  be  exercised  in  maintaining 
this  unanimity,  so  far  as  it  has  been  attained,  against  every  open  and 
obstinate  deviation  from  it.  For  every  particular  church,  and  all 
who  partake  of  her  sacramental  communion,  ought  to  walk  according 
to  the  same  rule,  and  to  mind  the  same  thing,  according  to  what  she 
has  attained.  To  the  same  purpose,  the  churches  are  charged  to 
hold  fast  what  they  have,  particularly,  the  profession  of  their  faith, 
without  wavering ;  to  lose  none  of  the  things  which  they  have  gain- 
ed; to  buy  the  truth,  and  contend  earnestly  for  it.*  Hence,  there 
is  no  evil,  for  which  the  church  is  more  severely  condemned,  than 
backsliding. 

Pages  76,  78.  "  Whatever  is  matter  of  duty,  is  a  part  of  some  whole, 
the  relation  to  which  is  susceptible  of  proof,  either  by  the  express  decis- 
ion of  scripture,  or  by  general  reasoning  ;  and  a  point  of  practice,  perfectly 
insulated  and  disjoined  from  the  general  system  of  duties,  can  never  be 
satisfactorily  vindicated.  Unless  I  am  much  mistaken,  the  question  under 
discussion  will  afford  a  striking  exemplification  of  the  justness  of  this  re- 
mark. If  it  be  found  impossible  to  fix  a  medium  betwixt  the  toleration 
of  all  opinions  in  religion,  and  the  restriction  of  it  to  errors  not  funda- 
mental ;  I  mean  such  as  are  admitted  to  consist  with  a  state  of  grace  and 
salvation.  When  the  necessity  of  tolerating  imperfection  is  once  admit- 
ted, there  remains  no  point  at  which  it  can  consistently  stop,  till  it  is  ex- 
tended to  every  gradation  of  error,  the  habitual  maintenance  of  which  is 
compatible  with  a  state  of  salvation.^' 

*  Revel,  ii.  25.  ill  11.    Heb.  x.  23.    2  John,  8.    Prov.  xxiii.  23.    Gal.  i.  6.  iii.  1. 


APPENDIX.  213 

Remarh.  Error,  as  such,  ought  not  to  be  tolerated  in  any  part  of 
the  Church  of  Christ;  and  though  in  this,  as  in  other  respects,  per- 
fection cannot  be  pretended  to  by  any  particular  church  :  yet  no 
church  ought  to  suffer  any  such  error  to  be  held  or  propagated  by 
any  in  her  communion,  as  would  be  a  manifest  denial  of  any  article, 
fundamental  or  not  fundamental,  of  her  public  scriptural  profession  ; 
for  the  text  just  now  cited  from  Philip,  iii.  1 6,  requires  her  to  walk 
according  to  that  profession  ;  while  it  obliges  her  to  walk  according 
to  what  she  has  attained.  This  is  evidently  a  medium  between  toler- 
ating all  error,  and  perfect  or  complete  freedom  from  it ;  a  medium 
very  different  from  that  of  tolerating  errors  not  fundamental. 

Page  81.  "  The  operation  of  speculative  error  on  the  mind,  is  one  of 
the  profoundest  secrets  in  nature ;  and  to  determine  the  precise  quantity 
of  evil  resulting  from  it  in  any  given  case,  except  the  single  one  of  its  in- 
volving a  denial  of  fundamental  truth,  transcends  the  capacity  of  human 
nature.  We  must,  in  order  to  form  a  correct  judgement,  be  not  only  per- 
fectly acquainted  with  the  nature  and  tendency  of  the  error  in  question, 
but  also  with  the  portion  of  attention  it  occupies,  as  well  as  the  degree  of 
zeal  and  attachment  with  which  it  is  embraced.  We  must  determine  the 
force  of  the  counteracting  principles,  and  how  far  it  bears  an  affinity  to 
the  predominant  feelings  of  him  who  maintains  it;  how  far  it  coalesces 
with  the  weaker  parts  of  his  moral  constitution.  These  particulars, 
however,  it  is  next  to  impossible  to  explore,  when  the  enquiry  respects 
ourselves ;  how  much  more  to  establish  a  scale,  which  shall  mark  by 
just  gradations,  the  malignant  influence  of  erroneous  conceptions  in 
others." 

Remark.  This  passage  seems  to  be  elegantly  written ;  but  has 
little  connection  with  the  subject  of  admission  to  sacramental  com- 
munion. When  we  consider  error  as  hindering  us  from  joining  with 
any  in  sacramental  communion,  we  do  not  consider  it  as  in  their 
hearts  and  consciences,  where  it  can  be  judged  by  God  alone ;  but 
as  it  is  in  their  public  profession  ;  in  which  case,  we  may  compare  it 
with  the  word  of  God,  and  with  the  public  profession  of  the  church, 
as  according  with  that  unerring  rule.  Mr.  Hall  allows,  that  in  one 
case,  the  evil  of  it  is  plain  ;  that  is,  when  it  involves  the  denial  of  fun- 
damental truth  :  but  that  it  is  a  real  evil,  is  no  less  evident  in  other 
cases,  while  it  involves  the  denial  of  Divine  truth,  and  of  some  par- 
ticular article  or  articles  of  Divine  truth  specified  in  the  church's  sub- 
ordinate standards.  Thus,  when  the  officers  of  the  church  find  per- 
sons openly  and  obstinately  avowing  tenets  which  are  both  contrary 
to  the  word  of  God,  and  to  the  public  profession  of  a  church,  and 
yet  admit  them  to  sacramental  communion,  they  are  manifestly  be- 
traying the  trust  committed  to  them.  To  see  the  evils  in  this  case, 
we  have  no  need  to  penetrate  into  the  profoundest  secrets  in  nature, 
or  to  intrude  into  those  things  which  we  have  not  seen  ;  but  only 
honestly  to  endeavor  to  walk  by  the  same  rule,  to  mind  the  same 
thing,  to  keep  the  white  line  in  view. 


214  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

Pages  73,  74.  "  "We  freely  admit  the  previous  obligation  of  delaying 
to  act  till  we  have  sufficient  light ;  but  in  entire  consistence  with  this,  we 
affirm,  that  where  there  is  no  hesitation,  the  criterion  of  immediate  duty 
is  the  suggestion  of  conscience ;  whatever  guilt  may  have  been  previous- 
ly incurred  by  the  neglect  of  serious  and  impartial  inquiry.  That  this, 
under  the  modifications  already  specified,  is  the  only  criterion,  is  suffi- 
ciently evident  from  the  impossibility  of  conceiving  any  other.  Hence, 
it  is  unquestionably  the  immediate  duty  of  persona  to  celebrate  the  euch- 
arist,  when  there  is  nothing  in  their  principles  to  cause  them  to  hesitate 
about  it.  They  would  be  guilty  of  a  deliberate  and  wilful  oflfence  were 
they  to  neglect  it." 

Remark.  According  to  this  doctrine,  which  a  person  by  adopt- 
ing erroneous  principles,  and  by  the  neglect  of  serious  and  impartial 
inquiry  has  got  his  mind  freed  from  all  hesitation  about  the  recti- 
tude of  doing  something  which  is  really  forbidden  by  the  Divine  law ; 
then,  he  has  sufficient  light  for  proceeding  immediately  to  act,  and 
whatever  guilt  might  have  been  incurred  before  by  his  neglect  of  in- 
quiry, yet  now  the  only  criterion  of  his  immediate  duty  is  the  sug- 
gestion of  his  conscience  :  there  is  an  impossibility,  it  is  said,  of  con- 
ceiving any  others ;  and  therefore,  what  he  does  is  completely  justi- 
fied, as  being  conformable  to  the  only  criterion  of  duty  in  the  sup- 
posed case.  This  is  sad  casuistry.  For  in  the  case  supposed,  the 
suggestion  of  conscience  is  quite  wrong  ;  as  that  never  can  be  right 
which  is  forbidden  by  the  Divine  law.  Conscience  is  but  a  deputy, 
and  must  speak  truly  the  will  and  mind  of  its  Lord,  the  Supreme 
Lawgiver  ;  otherwise,  it  must  not  be  acquiesced  in,  but  remitted  to  his 
word,  that  it  may  be  better  informed.  An  erring  conscience,  indeed, 
brings  a  person  into  a  dreadful  dilemma  :  for  if  he  disobeys  it,  he  sins 
in  despising  what  he  himself  takes  to  be  the  will  of  God  attested  by 
his  deputy.  On  the  other  band,  if  he  obey  it,  he  sins  ]  because  what 
he  does  is  contrary  to  the  will  of  God  revealed  in  his  word.  But  this 
deplorable  case  arises  neither  from  the  law  of  God,  nor  from  the  na- 
ture of  conscience  as  such,  but  from  the  depravity  of  man's  nature, 
and  from  the  neglect  or  perversion  of  the  means  of  its  information, 
which  is  more  immediately  the  person's  sin  in  this  case. 

Page  71.  "With  regard  to  the  error  of  those  who  differ  from  us  in  the 
interpretation  of  a  particular  precept,  the  proper  antidote  is  calm  dispas- 
sionate argument ;  not  the  exercise  of  discipline,  which  is  never  to  decide 
what  is  doubtful,  nor  to  elucidate  what  is  obscure.'' 

Remark.  In  dealing  with  the  erroneous,  we  are,  no  doubt,  in  the 
first  place,  to  use  calm  dispassionate  argument  as  the  mean  of  con- 
vincing them  of  their  error.  By  reasoning,  we  are  to  elucidate  what 
is  obscure,  and  to  remove  doubts.  But  when  such  reasoning  has 
been  used,  and  they  continue  obstinate  opposers  and  contemners  of 
any  of  the  truths  of  God's  word  stated  in  the  public  profession  of  the 
church,  censure  then  becomes  necessary.  Both  these  means  are  to 
be  used,  and  the  one  is  not  to  be  substituted  for  the  other.     Reason- 


APPENDIX.  216 

ing  alone  cannot  serve  in  the  place  of  censure  ;  nor  censure  alone  in 
the  place  of  reasoning.  Each  of  them  is  to  be  used  in  its  own  place, 
as  cases  require.  This  author  gives  a  very  just  view  of  a  lawful  se- 
cesson,  in  the  following  words  : 

Page  63.  "  Whenever  it  becomes  impossible  to  continue  in  a  religious 
community,  without  concurring  in  practices  and  sanctioning  abuses  which 
the  word  of  God  condemns,  a  secession  is  justified  by  the  apostolic  voice, 
'  Come  out  of  her,  my  people,  that  ye  be  not  partakers  of  her  sin,  and  that 
ye  receive  not  of  her  plagues.'  On  this  principle,  the  conduct  of  the  Re- 
formers, in  separating  from  the  Roman  hierarchy,  admits  of  an  ample 
vindication.  In  consequence  of  the  introduction  of  superstitious  rites  and 
ceremonies,  it  became  impracticable  to  continue  in  her  communion  with- 
out partaking  of  her  sins :  and,  for  a  similar  reason,  the  Nonconformists 
seceded  from  the  Church  of  England,  where  ceremonies  are  enforced,  and 
an  ecclesiastical  polity  established,  incompatible  as  they  conceived,  with 
the  purity  and  simplicity  of  the  christian  institute." 

Remark.  It  seems  unnecessary  to  add  to  what  has  been  advanc- 
ed in  the  preceding  dialogues,  on  the  inconsistency  of  our  having  sac- 
ramental communion  with  these  churches  or  societies,  from  which  we 
are,  upon  scriptural  grounds,  in  a  state  of  secession.  The  necessary 
import  of  our  joining  with  these  churches  in  public  and  sealing  ordi- 
nances, is  that  we  profess  our  willingness  to  join  in  their  communion, 
notwithstanding  their  refusal  to  reform  or  turn  from  the  evils,  which 
were  the  ground  of  our  secession ;  a  profession  which  is  plainly  the 
reverse  of  what  this  author  allows  to  be  the  import  of  our  secession. 
Our  joining  with  them,  therefore,  in  these  ordinances  is  plainly  in- 
consistent with  our  state  of  secession ;  and  is  therefore  unlawful ; 
while  it  is  our  duty  to  continue  in  that  state. 

Some  other  pleas  offered  by  this  writer  for  his  favorite  plan  of  free 
communion  have  been  considered  in  the  preceding  dialogues.  It 
would  be  improper  to  enter  on  any  particular  examination  of  his 
opinions  concerning  baptism.*    But  it  seems  preposterous  to  con- 

♦  It  is  admitted,  that  there  was  a  difference  between  the  baptism  of  John,  and  that  of  the 
apostles  and  other  ministers  of  Christ  after  his  resurrection;  as  the  former  was  before  the  full 
manifestation  of  him  as  the  true  Messiah,  and  the  latter  after  it;  and  also  in  this  respect,  that 
before  th«  resurrection  of  Christ,  baptism  was  not  indispensably  necessary  as  a  sacramental  seal 
of  admission  into  the  Church  of  God;  whereas  after  his  resurrection,  when  circumcision  was 
abrogated,  it  was  certainly  necessary  as  such  a  seal.  Before  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  baptism 
served  to  seal  men's  admission  into  the  church  of  God,  with  regard  to  the  New  Testament  dis- 
pensation which  was  then  beginning  to  be  iatroduced;  but  after  his  resurrection  baptism  served 
to  seal  their  admission  into  his  church  absolutely ;  or,  in  other  words,  it  was  the  only  sacramen- 
tal seal  of  their  admission  into  it.  Before  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  persons  were  sacramentally 
sealed  as  members  of  the  Church  of  God  without  baptism;  but  after  his  resurrection,  baptism 
was  the  only  way  in  which  they  could  receive  that  seal.  Hence  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ, 
baptism  became  equally  neeessary  as  circumcision  had  been ;  and  all  the  members  of  the  visible 
church  with  their  infants  are  to  be  baptized.  But  notwithstanding  these  differences  in  respect 
of  the  time  and  the  greater  necessity  of  baptism  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  than  before  it, 
we  have  good  reason  to  hold,  wl  at  has  been  hitherto  taught,  in  the  reformed  churches  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  Socinians  and  Papists,  that  the  baptism  of  John  and  the  baptism  administered  by 
the  apostles  and  other  ministers  of  Christ  after  his  resurrection,  were  essentially,  or  in  substance 
tlie  same.  Both  were  instituted  by  Christ,  and  both  signified  and  sealed  the  same  benefits  of  the 
covenant  of  grace.  This  docrine  is  positively  denied  by  Mr.  Hall  on  various  pretences  :  as,  1st, 
That  "John  nniformly  ascribes  his  baptism,  not  to  Christ,  but  to  the  Father."  Answer.  It 
does  not  follow  from  its  being  of  God  the  Father,  that  it  is  not  institute  i  by  Christ ;  for  all 
things  that  Chri.-t  did,  as  Mediator,  were  of  God  by  him.  2ndly.  That  "the  baptism  of  John  re- 
quired only  the  Jewish  faith,  the  appearance  of  the  Messiah,  with  the  additional  circumstances, 


216  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

tend  so  strenuously  for  the  necessity  of  what  he  calls  a  free  participa- 
tion of  the  Lord's  supper,  while  he  represents  the  want  of  baptism, 
even  in  those  who  reject  opportunities,  continually  afforded  them,  of 
obtaining  it,  as  no  way  blameable,  and  no  bar  to  the  enjoyment  of 
all  the  other  privileges  of  the  visible  church.  Surely  baptism  is  no 
less  necessary  than  the  Lord's  supper ;  and,  in  the  scriptural  order  of 
these  ordinances,  the  former  precedes  the  latter.  A  christian  should 
neither  neglect  baptism,  nor  yet  receive  it  after  his  partaking  of  the 
Lord's  supper.  There  is  no  scriptural  warrant  either  for  the  one  or 
the  other. 

that  it  was  at  hand.  But  the  baptism  of  the  apostles  required  the  faith,  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
was  the  identical  person,  who  was  the  Messiah."  Answer.  The  faith  which  the  truly  pious 
among  the  Jews  had  in  the  Messiah  was  materially  the  same  with  the  faith  of  true  believers 
now  ;  and  John  directed  the  faith  of  those,  whom  he  baptized,  to  the  identical  person,  the  Lamb 
of  God,  whotaketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world,  John  i.  29.  3dly,  "'That  christian  baptism  was 
inTrtriably  administered  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  while  John's  was  not  performed  in  that  name; 
for  when  he  began  to  baptize,  he  did  not  know  him."  Answer.  The  expression  /  knew  him  not, 
means,  that  he  had  never  seen  him  so  as  to  distinguish  his  bodily  appearance.  But  he  certainly 
knew  the  identical  person,  and  baptized  in  his  name,  whose  forerunner  he  was,  who  was  prefer- 
red before  him.  whose  shoe's  latchet  he  was  not  worthy  to  unloose  In  Acts,  xix.  5,  Paul,  says, 
that  John  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  4thly.  That,  "  the  baptism  instituted  by 
our  Lord  was  distinguished  by  the  superior  effects  of  it  from  that  of  his  forerunner,"  Matth.  iii. 
Answer.  The  opposition  stated  in  that  text  is  not  between  the  external  part  of  John's  baptism 
and  the  external  part  of  that  which  was  instituted  by  Jesus  Christ;  but  between  the  external 
part,  which  was  performed  by  John  and  is  performed  by  any  ministers  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  the  internal  part,  whieh  is  the  prerogative  of  Jesus  Christ  to  effectuate.  It  is  granted  that 
a  fixr  greater  effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit  attended  baptism  as  administered  by  the  apostles  than 
what  attended  John's  baptism  ;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  the  former  was  esseutially  different 
from  the  latter  The  Lord  the  Spirit  makes  the  same  ordinances  more  effectual  at  one  time  than 
at  another,  according  to  his  good  pleasure.  5thly,  That  "if  John's  baptism  had  been  the 
same  with  our  Lord's,  Paul  would  not  have  administered  the  latter  to  such  as  had  already  re- 
ceived the  former,"  Acts  xix.  5.  Answer.  Of  the  various  opinions  of  commentators  concerning 
this  passage,  none  that  I  have  beard  seems  te  me  more  reasonable  than  that  of  Beza,  Glassius, 
Waltherus  and  many  other  judicious  divines  ;  namely,  that  the  words  referred  to  in  v.  5,  are 
the  words  of  Paul  showing  the  d.sciples  at  Ephesus,  that  those  who  had  been  baptized  by  John 
or  according  to  his  doctrine,  ought  not  to  have  been  so  ignorant,  as  these  disciples  were,  of  the 
gift,  which  was  to  be  bestowed  on  the  church,  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  smce  those  whom  John  bap- 
tized, were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus ;  of  whom  John  always  testified,  that  ho 
would  baptize  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Greek  particles  men,  which  our  translators  have  ren- 
dered veriii;  in  the  beginning  of  Paul's  speech,  and  de  in  the  beginning  of  v.  5,  which  ought  not 
to  have  been  overlooked,  as  it  is  in  our  translation,  and  which  might  have  been  rendered  but, 
will  by  no  means  allow  us,  says  Beza,  to  break  the  connection  of  this  speech,  by  ascribing  the 
former  part  to  Paul,  and  the  latter  part  to  Luke.  Examples  of  the  use  of  these  corresponding 
particles  are  common,  as  in  Matth.  iii.  11;  ix.  37.  See  the  observatious  of  Dr.  Guise  on  thi.^  pas- 
sage. Mt.  Hall  offers  two  objections  to  this  interpretation.  The  first  is,  "  that  if  John  told  the 
people,  that  they  were  to  believe  on  him  who  was  to  come,  this  was  equivalent  to  declaring,  that 
he  hnd  uot  yet  manifested  himself ;  while  the  baptizing  in  his  name  as  an  existing  individual 
would  h  ive  been  to  aflSrm  the  contrary."  But  to  this  it  may  he  answered,  that,  as  Christ's  in- 
carnation hnd  actually  taken  place  many  years  before  the  ministry  of  John,  so  that  eminent 
minister  himself  believed,  and  exhorted  the  peeple  to  tielieve  on  Christ  as  a  person  then  subsist- 
ing in  human  nature  :  and  the  people  might  then  be  baptized  in  his  name,  as  well  as  believe  in 
him  as  such.  Mr.  Hall's  second  objection  is,  "  That  the  relative  pronoun,  according  to  the  in- 
terpretation in  question,  is  referred  to  an  antecedent  at  the  distance  of  three  verses,  and  that 
the  5th  and  6th  verses,  are  closely  connected  by  the  word  and,  in  the  beginuing  of  the  6th 
verse."  But  to  this  it  is  answered,  that  it  is  obvious  to  any  attentive  reader,  that  the  sense  or 
connection  of  a  passage  often  lequires  the  relative  to  be  referred,  not  to  the  nearest,  but  to  a 
more  remote  antecedent :  Thus  in  Luke  v.  17,  the  pronoun  them  at  the  end  of  that  verse  is  not 
to  be  referred  to  the  pharisees  and  doctors  of  the  law,  but  to  the  sick  mentioned  in  v.  15.  In 
Matth.  xvii.  27.  the  same  pronoun  refers  to  an  antecedent  in  v.  24.  With  regard  to  the  werd 
and  in  the  6th  v.  of  the  passage  under  consideration,  it  is  obvious,  that  according  to  the  sense  in 
which  this  word  is  often  used  in  scripture,  it  may  here  signify  only  that  in  consequence  of  Paul's 
speech  to  these  disciples  at  Ephesus,  he  laid  his  bands  on  them,  and  th»  other  things  here  relv 
ted  concerning  them  took  place. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS 


DIALOGUES  ON  CHURCH   COMMUNICN, 


PART   SECOND, 


Cont  end  earnestly  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints.— Ji^dfe. 

Separation  is  not  schism,  if  it  be  from  those,  however  many,  who,  though  they 
have  the  essentials,  and  even  more  than  the  essentials  of  a  church,  are  drawing 
back  from  the  duty  and  integrity  which  have  been  attained,  and  which  the  scrip- 
ture enjoins  us  to  hold  fast.— ilfr.  Forrester  in  his  Sectius  Instriiendum,  part  thirds 
chap.  i. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS, 


PART    SECOND, 


In  which  the  communion  of  the  secession  church  is  explained  and 

vindicated. 


DIALOGUE  I. 

Of  the  mcidents  whicli  occasioned  the  secession  of  some  ministers  from  the  Es- 
tablished  Church  of  Scotland -Their  secession  a  native  consequence  of  their 
protestation— The  good  things  done  by  the  General  Assembly  in  1734  and 
1736  insuflacient  to  remove  the  causes  of  the  secession— The  conduct  of  some 
esteemed  more  faithful  ministers  towards  their  seceding  brethren  not  justifi- 
able—The declinature  of  these  brethren  warrantable— The  objection  against 
this  secession,  from  the  case  of  several  churches  reproved  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, answered— The  corruptions  of  (what  may  be  called  in  a  large  sense)  a 
true  church  of  Christ,  in  some  cases,  suflBcient  to  warrant  a  secession  from 
her  communion— The  case  of  the  saints  continuing  within  the  pale  of  the  Old 
Testament  church,  when  in  a  most  degenerate  state,  considered — A  church's 
not  imposing  sinful  terms  of  communion,  not  always  suflQcient  to  warrant 
our  entering  into,  or  continuing  in  her  communion — A  secession,  on  scrip- 
tural grounds,  consistent  with  a  due  regard  to  the  unity  of  the  Church  of 
Christ— The  injustice  of  ascribing  the  principles  of  the  Novatians,  Donatists, 
and,  in  later  times,  of  the  English  Brownists,  to  the  seceding  ministers— 
The  conduct  of  the  faithful  ministers  in  the  period  between  1596  and  163S, 
and,  that  of  the  protesters  in  1650,  precedents  for  the  conduct  of  the  seceding 
ministers— Divisive  courses  not  countenanced  by  this  secession. 

Some  people  in  the  neighborhood  of  Alexander  and  Kufus,  having 
joined  the  communion  of  those  Presbyterians  called  Seceders,  had 
formed  a  worshiping  congregation.  This  event  led  Alexander  to 
desire  some  further  information  concerning  the  principles  of  the  Se- 
ceders than  what  he  had  received  fron  the  reading  of  Mr.  Willison's 
Impartial  Testimony.  Rufus  was  well  qualified  to  afford  him  that 
information  ;  for  he  had  carefully  perused  the  Judicial  Testimony  of 
the  Associate  Presbytery,  the  Defence  of  Reformation  Principles,  by 
Mr.  William  Wilson  of  Perth,  the  Declaration  and  Testimony  of  the 
Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  and  various  other  publications, 


220  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

serving  to  explain  and  vindicate  the  principles  of  the  secession  church. 
Having  studied  the  Secession  Testimony  with  accuracy,  he  could 
find  nothing  stated  as  an  article  of  it,  but  what  was  either  expressly 
taught  in  the  words  of  scripture,  or  deducible  from  the  words  of  it 
by  necessary  consequence.  Hence,  he  was  now  engaged  in  a  most 
serious  inquiry  concerning  the  duty  of  joining  in  the  communion 
of  the  Associate  body.  Such  was  the  state  ot  his  mind,  when,  hav- 
ing occasion  to  call  at  Alexander's  house,  the  following  conversation 
took  place: 

Alexander.  Rufus,  I  have  observed,  that,  of  late,  you  speak  more 
favorably  than  usual  of  the  Seceders. 

Rufus.  I  mnst  own,  that  while  I  adhere  to  the  received  principles 
of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  as  they  are  exhibited  in  the  Wesminster 
Confession  of  Faith,  the  form  of  presbyterial  church  government,  and 
directory  for  public  worship,  together  with  the  solemn  covenants 
that  were  entered  into  for  the  maintaining  of  these  principles,  I  fiud 
myself  unable  to  preserve  consistency  in  disputing  against  the  Sece- 
ders. 

Alex.  I  suppose  no  man  was  better  affected  to  the  received  prin- 
ciples of  the  Church  of  Scotland  than  Mr.  Willison,  whose  praise 
is  in  all  the  churches,  and  whose  piety,  the  Seceders  themselves, 
though  he  was  a  great  opposer  of  their  secession,  will  not  dare  to 
call  in  question.  His  account  may  be  depended  upon  :  he  knew 
them  well,  and  all  the  transactions  between  them  and  the  Church  of 
Scotland. 

RuF.  The  Seceders,  I  believe,  are  far  from  wishing  to  detract  from 
the  just  reputation  of  Mr.  Willison.  There  are  several  of  his  treati- 
ses, such  as  that  on  the  Sanctification  of  the  Sabbath,  and  the  Afflict- 
ed Man's  Companion,  which  they  often  recommend.  It  is  well 
known,  that  before  the  secession  of  these  ministers  from  the  establish- 
ed church,  Mr.  Willison  joined  with  them  in  bearing  testimony  against 
the  corruption  of  the  prevailing  party.  But,  after  that  event,  he  com- 
plained that  they  had  left  him  and  other  honest  ministers,  in  the  com- 
munion of  the  Established  Church,  to  struggle  with  that  party.  These 
ministers,  on  the  other  hand,  complained  that  he  would  not  come 
forth  to  help  them  ;  when  they,  for  no  other  cause  than  their  stead- 
fast adherence  to  the  received  principles  of  the  Church  of  Scotland, 
had  been  cast  out  of  its  communion  by  the  corruption  of  the  judica- 
tories, and  had  been  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  a  secession.  He 
said,  (perhaps  rather  uncharitably,)  that  these  ministers  having  pre- 
cipitately seceded  from  the  national  church,  became  engaged  in  honor 
to  persist  in  their  separation;  and  might  not  they  have  said  with  as 
much  reason,  that  Mr.  Willison,  having  taken  the  side  of  the  judica- 
tories against  his  old  friends,  considered  himself  as  bound  in  honor  to 
persist  in  his  opposition  to  them  ?  But  if  we  sincerely  desire  to 
know  whether  the  cause  of  Christ  and  truth  was  on  the  side  of  the 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  221 

judicatories  of  the  Established  Church,  or  on  that  of  the  ministers 
who  seceded  from  them,  we  are  no  more  to  give  a  blind  or  implicit 
credit  to  the  assertions  of  Mr.  Willison,  than  to  those  of  the  Sece- 
ders.  In  order  to  understand  the  ground  of  the  secession,  it  is  ne- 
cessary to  attend  to  those  proceedings  which  gave  occasion  to  it. 

Alex.  I  wish,  Rufus,  to  hear  a  short  relation  of  these  particu- 
lars ;  though  1  am  not  unacquainted  with  Mr.  Willison's  account  of 
them. 

§  1.  RuF.  In  complying  with  your  request,  1  shall  endeavor  to 
be  as  concise  as  is  consistent  with  a  just  representation  of  this  affair. 

In  the  year  1731,  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland 
had  an  overture  before  them  concerning  the  method  of  planting  va- 
cant churches,  directing  ministers  not  to  be  chosen  by  the  congrega- 
tions ]  but  to  be  imposed  upon  them  by  the  majority  in  a  meeting  of 
land  holders  and  elders  ;  and  allowing  all  land  holders  to  be  admitted 
as  voters  in  that  meeting,  under  the  simple  qualification  of  being  pro- 
testants.  This  overture  was  transmitted  to  the  several  presbyteries, 
that  they  might  return  their  opinion  to  the  next  Assembly,  whether 
it  should  be  turned  into  a  standing  act.  At  the  next  Assembly, 
which  was  in  iMay,  1732,  it  was  found  that  the  greater  part  of  the 
presbyteries  were  absolutely  against  it.  At  the  same  time  two  repre- 
sei^tious  were  offered  to  the  Assembly :  one  by  forty-two  minis- 
ters ;  the  other  by  upwards  of  seventeen  hundred  christian  people ; 
both  of  them  remonstrating  against  this  overture  and  various  other 
things.  But  their  representations  were  not  allowed  so  much  as  a 
hearing.  Though  there  were  so  many  presbyteries  against  the  over- 
ture :  yet  the  Assembly  turned  it  into  a  standing  act,  without  any 
material  amendment;  refusing,  at  the  same  time,  to  take  any  notice, 
in  their  records,  either  of  a  dissent  from  this  act,  or  of  a  protest 
against  it,  which  had  been  offered  by  several  ministers  and  elders, 
members  of  the  Assembly, 

In  October  following,  Mr.  Ebenezer  Erskine,  one  of  these  dissen- 
ters and  protesters,  preached  a  sermon  at  the  opening  of  the  Synod  of 
Perth  and  Sterling,  from  Psal.  cxviii.  22,  in  which  he  gave  a  plain 
testimony  against  various  public  evils,  particularly,  against  this  Act 
of  Assembly,  and  the  proceedings  of  the  church  judicatories  in  the 
violent  settlement  of  ministers.  For  such  plain  dealing  he  was  judg- 
ed censurable  by  a  majority  of  the  synod.  This  judgment  was  dis- 
sented from  by  Mr.  Alexander  Moncrief  of  Abernethy  and  by  Mr. 
William  Wilson  of  Perth  ;  while  Mr.  Erskine  and  Mr.  James  Fisher 
of  Kinclaven  protested  and  appealed  to  the  next  General  Assembly. 
The  synod  also  determined  the  censure  of  Mr.  Erskine  to  be  a  re- 
buke for  the  offence  he  had  given  by  his  sermon  and  an  admonition 
to  abstain  from  the  like  in  time  to  come.  But  this  sentence  was  not 
executed,  as  Mr.  Erskine  by  the  time  this  determination  was  made, 
had  gone  away. 


222  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

When  the  Assembly  met  in  May  1733,  they  approved  the  sentence 
of  the  synod,  and  appointed  it  to  be  executed  at  their  own  bar.  Mr. 
Erskine  immediately  declared,  that  he  could  not  submit ;  and  offered 
a  paper  for  himself  and  his  three  brethren ;  in  which  they  protested 
against  this  sentence,  and  asserted  their  liberty  to  preach  the  same 
truths,  and  to  testify  against  the  same  or  like  defection  on  all  proper 
occasions.  But  the  Assembly  the  next  day  having  found  that  all 
the  four  adhered  to  their  protest,  appointed  them  to  appear  before 
the  commission*  in  august  next ;  and  ordained,  that  if  they  should 
not  then  retract  their  protest,  and  profess  their  sorrow  for  giving  it 
in,  they  should  be  suspended  from  the  exercise  of  their  ministry ;  and 
that,  if  they  should  act  contrary  to  this  sentence,  the  commission 
would  proceed,  at  their  next  meeting  in  November  ensuing,  to  a  higher 
censure.  Accordingly,  as  these  ministers  still  adhered  to  their  pro- 
test, the  commission  first  suspended  them,  and  afterwards  dissolved 
their  relation  to  their  several  charges  ;  declaring  them  to  be  no  longer 
ministers  of  the  Church  of  Scotland.  In  November  when  the  last  of 
these  sentences  was  intimated  to  the  four  protesters,  they  read  a  pa- 
per and  delivered  it  to  the  clerk ;  in  which  they  adhered  to  their  for- 
mer protestation:  "and  therefore,"  said  they,  "  since  the  prevailing 
party,  who  have  now  cast  us  out  of  ministerial  communion,  are  going 
on  in  a  course  of  defection  from  reformation  principles,  and  suppress- 
ing freedom  and  faithfulness  in  testifying  against  the  backsliding  of 
the  church ;  we  do,  for  this  and  other  weighty  reasons,  protest  that 
we  are  obliged  to  make  A  SECESSION  from  them ;  and  that  we 
can  have  no  ministerial  communion  with  them  ,  till  they  see  their  sins 
and  mistakes,  and  amend  them.  And  in  like  manner,"  added  they, 
we  do  protest,  that  it  shall  be  lawful  and  warrantable  for  us,  to  exer- 
cise the  keys  of  doctrine,  discipline  and  government  according  to  the 
word  of  God^  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  the  principles  audconstitu- 
tions  of  this  church,  as  if  no  such  censure  had  been  passed  upon  us. 

About  three  weeks  after  they  had  declared  themselves  in  a  state  of 
secession,  they  constituted  a  presbytery,  which  was  afterwards  known 
by  the  name  of  THE  ASSOCIATE  PRESBYTERY.  They  still 
had  h  opes,  that  the  equity  of  their  cause  and  the  excellence  of  those 
reformation  principles  for  which  they  contended,  would  be  acknowl- 
edged by  the  national  church.  On  this  account,  though  the  Associate 
Presbytery  was  constituted  in  the  latter  part  of  the  year  1733  ;  and 
though  they  had  frequent  meetings  for  prayer  and  conference  about 
the  situation  into  which  the  Lord,  in  his  adorable  Providence,  had 
brought  them; — yet  it  was  not  till  the  year  1735,  that  they  proceeded 
to  acts  of  jurisdiction.      Then  they  appointed  a  committee  of  their 

*  A  commission  of  the  General  Assembly  is  different  from  a  committee  ;  a  com- 
mittee is  appointed  to  prepare  matters  for  being  determined  by  the  Assembly: 
but  a  commission  determines  the  matters  committed  to  them;  and  there  lies  no 
appeal  from  their  sentence  to  the  ensuing  General  Assembly. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  223 

number  to  prepare  a  draught  of  their  judicial  testimony;  which  was 
enacted  and  published  in  the  following  year.  Such  was  the  rise  of 
the  secession  in  Scotland. 

Alex.  Your  statement,  in  general,  agrees  with  Mr.  "Willis  on's. 
Only  according  to  him  and  others ,  the  rebuke,  which  the  Synod  of 
Perth  and  Sterling  appointed  Mr.  Ebenezer  Erskine  to  receive,  was 
not  so  much  for  testifying  against  the  act  of  the  assembly  in  1732, 
and  other  proceedings  of  the  church  courts,  as  for  his  manner  of  doing 
so.  Many  of  his  friends,  as  Mr.  Willison  observes,  wished  that  he 
had  not  used  such  asperity  and  tartness  of  expression  about  the  min- 
istry and  judicatures  of  the  church,  as  he  did.* 

RuF.  I  cannot  help  thinking,  with  Mr.  Wilson  of  Perth,f  that  this 
suggestion  was  an  after  thought  of  the  ruling  party  in  the  assembly  to 
excuse  their  arbitrary  sentence.  And  a  pitiful  one  it  was  ;  for  it  is 
plainly  inconsistent  with  the  terms  of  the  Assembly's  act  affirming 
the  sentence  of  the  synod ;  according  to  which  Mr.  Erskine  was  to  be 
"rebuked  at  their  bar  for  impugning,  in  his  sermon  before  the  synod, 
acts  of  the  Assembly  and  proceedings  of  church  judicatories."  Mr. 
Erskine  in  his  protest  considers  the  rebuke  tendered  to  him  by  the  As- 
sembly as  "having  been"  not  for  his  manner  of  expression,  but  "for 
things''  (that  is,  the  matter  of  his  sermon,)  '"'  which  he  conceived  to 
be  agreeable  to  and  founded  upon  the  word  of  God  and  the  approved 
standards  of  the  church  of  Scotland;"  and  asserts  "that  he  should 
be  at  liberty  to  preach  the  same  truths  of  God  and  to  testify  against 
the  same  or  like  defections  of  this  church,  upon  all  proper  occasions.'' 
In  like  manner,  the  other  three  brethren  declared  their  adherence  not 
to  Mr.  Erskine's  manner  of  expression,  but  to  the  matter  of  his  tes- 
timony against  the  act  of  assembly  in  1732;  and  to  his  protestation 
as  asserting  their  privilege  and  duty  to  testify  publicly  against  the 
same  or  like  defections.  J    According  to  the  supposition  of  the  objec- 

*  Willison's  Impartial  Testimony,  page  134.  According  to  the  edition  printed 
at  Pittsburgh  in  1808. 

\  Continuation  of  his  Defence  of  Reformation  Principles,  Chap,  iii.,  Sect.  2nd, 
page  405. 

X  These  four  ministers,  in  a  publication  of  theirs  printed  in  1734,  say,  "How- 
ever it  is  now  pretended,  that  it  was  only  for  the  indecency  of  expression,  that 
Mr.  Erskine  was  rebuked  ;  yet,  as  the  act  and  sentence  itself  expressly  bears,  that 
the  matter  as  well  as  manner  of  expression,  was  condemned  both  by  the  Synod 
and  Assembly ;  so  the  chief  managers  and  framers  of  the  Act  had  no  other  veiw 
of  it :  for  the  reverend  and  honorable  members  of  the  Assembly's  committee, 
that  were  appointed  to  converse  with  the  four  brethren  after  their  protestation 
was  given  in,  plainly  told  them,  that  it  was  unjustifiable  to  speak  from  the  pul- 
pit against  auy  act  of  Assembly,  or  the  proceedings  of  church  judicatories.  And 
when  the  brethren  replied,  that  this  was  an  invading  of  a  protestant  principle 
contained  in  our  Confession  of  Faith,  if  ministers  were  censured  for  disburdening 
their  consciences  as  to  public  church  proceedings,  which  appear  to  them  to  be 
contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  and  to  sap  the  foundation  of  our  church  constitu- 
tion ;  they  were  likewise  told,  that  if  they  could  not  be  silent  from  speaking 


224  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

tion,  then,  the  Assembly  and  their  commission  had  no  ground  at  all  to 
proceed  against  these  four  ministers  on  account  of  their  protestation  ; 
as  there  was  nothing  in  it  respecting  Mr.  Erskine's  manner  of  ex- 
pression. 

Alex.  Some  have  thought,  that  Mr.  Erskine  might  have  submitted 
to  the  sentence  of  the  synod  or  Assembly ;  for  unless  we  allow,  that 
such  submission  ought  to  be  yielded  to  church  courts,  we  introduce 
the  independent  principle^  that  no  regard  is  to  be  had  to  the  determi- 
nation of  a  church  judicature,  unless  it  be  right  in  our  own  eyes. 

RuF.  It  is  indeed  the  opinion  of  Independents,  that  though  synods 
or  meetings  of  the  office-bearers  of  the  churches  may  be  held  on  some 
occasions;  yet  their  power  is  only  that  of  consulting,  recommending, 
or  giving  advice.  This  opinion  is  justly  rejected  by  Presbyterians ; 
because  the  church,  or  assembly,  mentioned  in  Matt,  xviii.  and  17th  v. 
to  which  our  Lord  has  given  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing,  or  of 
discipline  a?nd  government  with  a  promise  of  his  gracious  presence 
with  them  in  the  faithful  exercise  of  that  power,  ought  not  only  to  re- 
move the  offence  given  by  some  individuals  of  a  worshiping  congre- 
gation, but  also  offences  with  which  whole  worshiping  congregations 
may  be  chargeable,  or  in  which  many  such  congregations  may  be  con- 
cerned. Of  such  general  concern  was  the  case  referred  by  the  church 
at  Antioch  to  the  meeting  of  the  apostles  and  elders  at  Jerusalem.  It 
is  evident,  that  the  judgment  of  that  meeting  was  delivered,  not 
merely  as  a  recommendation  or  adviee ;  but  as  an  authoritative  decision: 
a  decree  ordained  by  the  apostles  and  elders  who  were  at  Jerusalem. 
Thus  the  office-bearers  of  the  Church  of  Christ  met  in  his  name  are  to 
determine  authoritatively  questions  about  matters  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice, and  to  inflict  censure  on  the  scandalous ;  and  their  determina- 
tions, if  consonant  to  the  word  of  God,  are  to  be  received  with  rever- 
ence and  submission,  not  only  for  their  agreement  with  the  word  of 
God,  but  also  for  the  power,  whereby  they  are  made,  as  being  an  ordi- 
nance of  God  appointed  in  his  word.  Hence  it  is  allowed,  that  in  pri- 
vate and  personal  causes,  which  concern  us  in  our  individual  capacity 
only,  while  there  is  no  imposition  on  the  conscience,  we  are  to  submit 
to  the  sentences  of  church  judicatures ;  or  at  least  to  acquiesce  in 
those  which  are  in  the  last  resort,  even  though  we  do  not  see  the  equi- 
ty of  them.  For  when  we  have  used  the  means  of  Divine  appoint- 
ment for  obtaining  the  redress  of  private  and  personal  grievances 
without  success,  we  are  then  to  sacrifice  our  own  matters  to  the  peace 
of  the  church.  In  like  manner,  when  the  judicatories  of  the  church 
refuse  to  adopt  the  judgment,  however  sound,  of  an  individual,  as  a  part 
of  the  church's  public  profession,  he  ought  to  acquiesce,  whilst  he  can- 

against  acts  of  Assembly  and  the  proceedings  of  the  judicatories,  that  then  they 
should  go  out  of  the  church."  It  does  not  appear  that  this  account  of  that  com- 
mittee's convefsation  with  these  ministers  was  ever  contradicted  by  Mr.  Currie. 
Mr.  Willison,  or  any  other  of  their  opponents. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  225 

not  pretend,  that  what  he  has  advanced  has  ever  before  been  state  d  by 
the  church  of  Christ  as  an  article  of  her  public  profession,  according 
to  the  word  of  God.  The  submission,  however,  which  we  owe  to 
church  judicatories  is  only  in  the  Lord  ;  they  are  not  lords  of  our  faith 
or  conscience.  They  have  authority  to  declare  and  vindicate  the 
truths  and  ordinances  of  Christ ;  but  when  they  pretended  to  exercise 
this  authority  against  the  public  cause  of  God,  against  a  testimony 
for  reformation  principles  which  the  Church  of  Christ  has  solemnly 
adopted  in  her  acts  and  constitutions  ;  to  submit  silently  to  such  an 
unjust  sentence  of  a  church  court  and  do  nothing  against  it,  is  to  be- 
come luke-warm,  instead  of  being  valiant  for  the  truth  ;  and  to  favor, 
instead  of  opposing,  the  design  of  those  who  are  seeking  to  bury  the 
cause  of  Christ.  If  Luther  and  our  other  reformers  had  tamely  sub- 
mitted to  the  ecclesiastical  courts  in  their  time,  the  reformation  would 
have  been  crushed  in  the  bud,  and  we  might  still  have  been  groaning 
under  the  yoke  of  antichristian  bondage.  Hence,  I  am  apprehensive, 
that,  as  christians  and  protestants,  we  cannot  well  insist  upon  it,  that 
Mr.  Erskine's  refusing  to  submit  to  the  sentence  of  the  Synod  and 
Assembly  was  wrong  ;  merely  upon  the  ground  of  the  submission 
due  to  church  authority,  which  the  Lord  hath  given  his  ministers  for 
the  edification  of  his  people ;  while  that  authority  was  abused  to 
the  purpose  of  suppressing  a  testimony  against  evils  tending  to  des- 
truction. 

§  2.  Alex.  Mr.  Willison  seems  not  to  disapprove  the  protest  en- 
tered by  Mr.  Erskine  and  his  brethren  against  the  sentence  of  the 
commission  in  November,  ITSS;  and  also  their  appeal  to  the  first, 
free,  faithful  and  Reforming  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland. 
Had  they  sisted  here,  adds  he,  they  had  done  well ;  but  they  went  a 
great  deal  further  by  making  a  secession  from  the  judicatories  of  this 
church.* 

RuF.  Here  I  must  own  Mr.  Willison  appears  to  be  inconsistent. 
He  does  not  disapprove  their  protesting,  "  that,  notwithstanding  the 
censure  passed  on  them,  it  should  still  be  lawful  and  warrantable  for 
them  to  exercise  the  keys  of  doctrine,  discipline  and  government;" 
and  yet  he  condemns  their  adherence  to  their  protest  in  continuing  to 
exercise  those  keys  ;  which  they  could  not  now  exercise  in  conjunction 
with  the  judicatories  which  had  cast  them  out.  They  were  now  under 
a  necessity  of  either  seceding  from  these  judicatories  or  of  desisting 
from  the  exercise  of  their  office.  In  doing  the  former  they  firmly  ad- 
hered to  the  resolution  declared  in  their  protest ;  but  if  they  had  done 
the  latter,  they  would  have  receded  from  that  resolution.  Again,  he 
seems  to  approve  their  maintenance  of  a  faithful  testimony  against 
the  defections  of  these  judicatories  from  reformation  principles  ;  and 
yet  disapprove  their  secession,  when  all  the  ways  in  which  such  a  tes- 

*  "Willison's  Impartial  Testimony,  136. 

15 


226  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

timony  could  be  maintained  in  a  state  of  communion  with  the  prevail- 
ing party,  such  as  by  preaching  against  the  public  corruptions  and  by 
protesting  against  them  in  the  judicatories,  had  been  made  grounds 
of  censure ;  when  petitions  and  remonstrances  against  these  corrup- 
tions could  not  obtain  a  hearing,  and  when  such  a  testimony  was  be- 
come more  necessary  than  before,  by  the  unjust  proceedings  of  the  ju- 
dicatories in  the  case  of  these  ministers.  Further,  when  Mr.  Willison 
does  not  disapprove  their  protest,  he  owns  the  sentence  of  the  Synod 
and  Assembly  to  be  unjust ;  and  yet  he  says,  "  that  truth  would  not 
have  suffered,  though  they  had  forborne  to  protest  as  they  did  in  ex- 
press words,  against  the  sentence  of  the  Assembly,  and  against  any 
censure  they  should  inflict  on  them,  as  null  and  void  of  itself. "  If 
their  protest  was  right,  then  Mr.  Willison  should  have  acknowledged, 
that  it  was  their  duty  to  enter  it  in  the  plainest  and  most  express 
terms  ;  and  that  it  would  have  been  their  sin  to  have  omitted  it,  or 
not  to  have  adhered  steadily  to  it.  On  the  other  hand,  if  it  was 
wrong  or  if  the  sentence  of  the  Synod  and  Assembly,  ought  not  to 
have  been  called  unjust,  then  he  should  not  have  said,  that  they  did 
well  in  protesting. 

§  3.  Alex.  Mr.  Willison  thinks,  that  these  brethren  ought  to  have 
waited  on  the  Assembly,  which  was  to  meet  in  1Y34,  before  they  had 
made  a  secession  from  the  judicatories  of  the  Established  church,  and 
constituted  themselves  into  a  distinct  judicatory  for  licensing  preach- 
ers and  ordaining  ministers.* 

RuF.  The  same  light,  which  showed  then,  that  it  was  their  duty  to 
protest  against  the  sentence  of  the  Synod  and  Assembly,  directed 
them  to  adhere  firmly  to  their  protest,  and  to  continue  in  the  full  ex- 
ercise of  their  office  as  ministers  of  Jesus  Christ.  This,  as  they  were 
now  circumstanced,  they  could  not  do  without  making  secession. 
Hence  they  were  under  a  necessity  of  taking  that  step.  Neither  Mr. 
Willison  nor  any  other  has  shown,  that  their  case  was  not,  as  they  have 
represented  it :  that  is,  that  they  were  so  shut  up  in  the  course  of  Di- 
vine Providence,  and  saw  the  path  of  duty  so  plainly  marked  out  in 
the  word,  that  they  were  not  in  any  doubt  about  it.f     In  this  case,  to 

*  Willison's  Impartial  TestimoDyj  page  136. 

t  "  Our  ordination  vows  and  engagements,"  say  they  "  oblige  ns  to  the  several 
steps  we  have  taken. — Our  submission  to  judicatories  is  according  to  the  word  of 
God ;  and  our  received  and  approved  standards  of  doctrine,  worship,  govern- 
ment and  discipline :  These  are  the  only  terms  of  ministerial  communion  amongst 
us ;  and  we  refuse,  that  we  have  broken  through  any  of  them.  We  have  continued  in 
ministerial  communion  with  what  is  now  reckoned  the  Established  Church,  till  they 
have  declared,  that  they  will  not  allow  us  any  longer  ministerial  communion  with 
them.  The  prevailing  party  have  now  declared,  that  they  will  allow  none  to  con- 
tinue in  ministerial  communion  with  them,  who  testify,  either  doctrinally  from 
the  pulpit,  or  by  protestation  in  the  supreme  judicatory,  against  their  sinful  and 
unwarrantable  proceedings."  Review  of  the  Narrative  emitted  by  a  Committee  of 
the  Commission  of  the  Assemby. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  227 

have  advised  with  friends,  as  if  they  had  been  uncertain  what  they 
ought  to  do,  would  have  been  gross  dissimulation,  unfaithfulness  to 
the  light  which  the  Lord  had  aftbrded  them,  and  a  sinful  conferring 
with  flesh  and  blood.  Mr.  Willison  thinks,  that  they  might  have  de- 
layed making  a  secession,  till  the  next  meeting  of  the  Assembly.  But 
in  the  case  now  supposed,  they  were  rather  to  imitate  the  apostle  of 
the  gentiles,  who,  on  a  certain  occasion,  would  give  place  by  subjec- 
tion, no,  not  for  an  hour.  If  the  next  Assembly  should  prove  a  faith- 
ful, reforming  one,  these  ministers  had  nothing  to  fear  on  account  of 
their  having  made  a  secession  from  the  ruling  party,  who  were  of  a 
quite  opposite  character.  Mr.  Willison  ought  not  to  have  reproach- 
«i  these  ministers  with  undue  haste,  in  giving  up  church  communion 
with  the  ministry  of  the  establishment ;  for  when  they  first  declared 
themselves  in  a  state  of  secession,  they  professed  their  readiness  to 
hold  communion  with  such  ministers  of  the  Established  Church,  as 
were  adhering  to  the  principles  of  the  covenanted  reformation,  and  la- 
menting the  contrary  public  evils.  But  many  who  had  formerly  ap- 
peared against  these  evils,  ceased  more  and  more  from  their  faithful 
testimony  against  them ;  nay,  they  were  led  to  justify,  extenuate,  or 
countenance  them,  by  continuing  in  conjuction  with  the  ruling  party, 
who  refused  to  be  reclaimed.  So  that  the  communion  of  the  seceding 
ministers  with  those  of  the  Established  Church  became  more  and  more 
inconsistent  with  the  testimony  which  even  Mr.  Willison  allows  it  was 
their  duty  to  maintain,  till  it  entirely  ceased  about  the  year  1739. 
Besides,  it  should  be  recollected,  that,  as  was  formerly  related,  though 
the  four  brethren  were  constituted  into  a  presbytery  towards  the  end 
of  the  year  lt33  ;  yet  they  did  not  proceed  to  any  acts  of  jurisdiction, 
such  as  licensing  and  ordaining  candidates  for  the  holy  ministry  for 
two  or  three  years  afterwards. 

Alex.  Mr.  W^illison  tells  us,  that  in  the  year  1734,  though  the 
four  ejected  brethren  declined  to  represent  what  they  would  have  the 
Assembly  do  to  satisfy  them  ;  yet  the  Assembly  empowered  the  Synod 
of  Perth  and  Sterling  to  restore  them  to  their  charges  and  the  com- 
munion of  this  church ;  which  was  accordingly  done  very  soon  after 
the  meeting  of  the  Assembly,  without  requiring  any  acknowledgments 
from  them.*  Mr.  Willison  and  others  condemned  their  refusal  to  re- 
turn to  the  communion  of  the  Established  Church,  when  such  a  door 
was  opened  to  them. 

RuF.  I  wonder  how  Mr.  Willison  could  represent  the  Assembly  as 
at  any  loss  to  know  what  would  have  satisfied  the  four  brethren  ;  since 
they  had  laid  before  the  commission  a  particular  representation  of  their 
grievances.  Besides,  they  had  expressed  their  mind  in  a  Review 
(which  they  had  published  some  time  before  the  Assembly  met)  of  a 
publication  by  a  committee  of  the  commission,  entitled,  A  Narrative 

*  Imp.  Test.  Pages  138,  139. 


228  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

and  State  of  the  Proceedings  against  these  Brethren.  And  there  is 
no  reason  to  think  that  they  would  have  refused,  if  the  Assembly  had 
candidly  desired  them,  to  give  a  further  explanation  of  their  mind. 
When  Mr.  Willison  tells  us,  that  the  Assembly  appointed  the  Synod 
of  Perth  and  Sterling  to  restore  these  brethren  to  their  several  char- 
ges and  to  the  communion  of  the  church,  he  ought  to  have  added,  that 
the  appointment  was  accompanied  with  this  express  direction,  "that 
the  said  synod  should  not  take  upon  them  to  judge  of  the  legality  or 
formality  of  the  former  proceedings  of  the  judicatories  in  relation  to 
this  affair ;  or  either  to  approve  or  censure  the  same."  This  direction 
appears  at  first  view  unnecessary  and  unusual ;  for  when  the  Assem- 
bly did  not  repeal  their  sentence  against  these  ministers,  as  illegal  or 
informal,  it  was  plain  the  synod  could  not  repeal  it ;  for  an  inferior 
court  cannot  repeal  an  act  of  a  superior.  But  this  direction  plainly 
intimated  that  the  Assembly  in  1734  would  not  suffer  the  legality  or 
formality  of  that  sentence  to  be  called  in  question ;  and  that  these 
ministers  were  still  considered  as  criminals,  who  were  favored  with  the 
relaxation  of  a  just  sentence  for  the  sake  of  peace.  Thus,  it  does  not 
appear  that  the  Assembly,  in  1134,  allowed  that  any  injustice  was 
done  to  these  ministers  by  the  proceedings  of  the  former  Assembly. 
Hence  the  Assembly,  in  their  Act  passed  in  the  year  1*738,  concern- 
ing the  Seceding  ministers,  speak  of  the  clemency  shown  some  of  them 
in  the  year  1134.  But  these  ministers  pleaded  for  the  repeal  of  the 
sentences  against  them,  not  as  an  act  of  clemency,  but  of  justice  ;  and 
that  not  so  much  to  themselves,  as  to  injured  truth  ;  and  in  order  that 
sentences,  so  obstructive  to  the  faithful  discharge  of  the  ministerial 
office,  might  not  remain  to  future  generations  as  standing  acts  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland.  If  the  sentences  passed  against  these  ministers 
by  the  Assembly  and  their  commission,  in  1733,  were  unjust,  it  does 
not  appear  that  the  Assembly,  in  1734,  made  any  acknoweldgment  of 
that  injustice,  or  gave  these  ministers  any  sufficient  ground  to  believe 
that  the  sentences  against  them  were  not  still  considered  by  that  As- 
sembly as  legal,  formal,  valid,  and  as  precedents  to  be  imitated  after- 
wards. Hence  it  is  no  wonder  that  these  ministers,  when  they  con- 
sidered the  principle,  on  which  the  Act  of  the  Assembly  for  restoring 
them  proceeded^  could  not  acquiesce  in  it. 

Alex.  This  Assembly  repealed  the  act  passed  in  1732,  which  had 
given  occasion  to  the  protestation  and  secession  of  these  ministers. 
For  their  satisfaction  and  for  that  of  all  others,  the  same  Assembly 
made  an  act  declaring,  that  due  and  regular  ministerial  freedom  is 
still  left  entire  to  all  ministers.  They  also  gave  remarkable  checks 
to  violent  settlements.  This  was  a  singularly  faithful  and  reforming 
Assembly,  who  did  very  much  in  a  short  time.  On  these  accounts 
Mr.  Willison  thinks,  that  the  four  brethren  ought  not  to  have  per- 
sisted in  their  secession.* 

*  Imp.  Test,  pages  139, 140. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  229 

Rup.  With  regard  to  the  act  of  this  celebrated  Assembly  concern- 
ing ministerial  freedom^  it  is  necessary  to  remember,  that,  when  they 
declare  "  that  due  and  regular  ministerial  freedom  is  still  left  entire 
to  all  ministers,"  they  add,  "  that  the  same  was  not,  nor  shall  be  held, 
nor  understood  to  be  any  wise  impaired  by  the  late  Assembly's  deci- 
sion in  the  process  against  Mr.  Erskine  ;"  hereby  signifying  that, 
however  such  freedom  as  that  which  Mr.  Erskine  had  used  in  his  ser- 
mon was  manifestly  restrained  by  their  sentences  against  him,  there 
was  no  impairing  or  restraining  in  these  sentences  of  due  and  regular 
ministerial  freedom.  So  that  the  freedom  which  Mr.  Erskine  had 
used,  and  for  which  he  and  his  three  brethren  had  protested,  was 
considered  as  neither  due  nor  regular.  Hence  it  appears,  that,  what- 
ever the  Assembly  found  it  expedient  to  do  for  the  sake  of  peace, 
they  still  justified  the  censures  that  had  been  passed  on  these  breth- 
ren^ and  branded  the  freedom,  for  which  they  had  protested,  as  un- 
due and  irregular.  With  regard  to  the  act  passed  in  1732,  concern- 
ing the  settlement  of  vacant  congregations,  though  it  was  repealed, 
it  was  not  declared  sinful,  or  contrary  to  the  rights  and  privileges 
that  belong  to  the  people  of  God,  according  to  his  word  and  the  sub- 
ordinate standards  of  the  Church  of  Scotland.  Nothing  was  stated 
as  the  reason  of  its  repeal,  but  that^  in  the  passing  of  it,  some  forms, 
that  had  been  appointed  by  the  Assembly  to  be  obseved  in  such 
cases,  had  been  omitted.*  Nor  was  the  method  of  settling  ministers 
according  to  the  said  Act ;  nor  the  practice  of  candidates  in  accept- 
ing presentations  from  patrons,  declared  to  be  contrary  to  the  word  of 
God  and  sufficient  ground  of  church  censure.  So  that  Mr.  Willison 
had  little  reason  to  boast  of  the  checks  given  by  this  Assembly  to 
violent  settlements.  How  unavailing  their  pretended  checks  were 
appears  from  a  statement  which  I  shall  now  read  to  you  from  Mr. 
Wilson's  Defence,  published  in  the  year  1739 ;  a  statement  which  is 
not  contradicted  by  Mr.  Willison,  nor,  as  far  as  I  know,  by  any 
other.  "Even  the  Assembly  in  1734,  when  the  case  of  Cambusne- 
than,"  says  Mr.  Wilson,  "  came  before  them  by  an  appeal  from  a  sen- 
tence of  the  presbytery  of  Hamilton,  evidently  tending  to  a  violent 
settlement,  remitted  it  to  the  presbytery  of  Hamilton  to  proceed  to- 
wards the  settlement,  as  they  shall  judge  best  for  the  edification  of 
that  congregation.  This  was  a  delivering  up  of  the  oppressed  into 
the  hands  of  those  who  had  given  sentence  against  them,  f  Every 
one  of  our  Assemblies  since  the  year  1734,  have  authorized, ^support- 
ed or  countenanced  such  violent  settlements,  either  upon  the  footing 
of  the  repealed  act,  passed  in  1732,  or  upon  the  footing  of  the  patron- 
age Act:  As  for  instance,  the  Assembly  in  1735,  referred  the  case 
of  the  enrolment  of  the  intruders  into  the  parishes  of  Muckhart  and 

*  Wilson's  Defence  of  Reformation  principles,  chap.  ii.  sect.  2d,  page  105. 
+  Ibid,  page  106. 


230  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

Troquire  unto  their  respective  synods;  hereby  plainly  authorizing 
the  synods  to  enrol  these  intruders.  The  Assembly  in  1736,  appoint- 
ed the  presbytery  of  Sterling  to  proceed  to  a  violent  settlement  in 
the  parish  of  Denny  :  and  the  Assembly  in  1737,  declared  their  dis- 
satisfaction with  the  conduct  of  the  presbytery  of  Sterling  in  neglect- 
ing to  obey  the  appointment  of  the  preceding  Assembly  with  respect 
to  that  settlement.  The  Assembly  in  1738,  appointed  a  violent  set- 
tlement in  the  parish  of  Dron  ;  and  sustained  a  call  for  Dr.  Wisheart 
to  one  of  the  Churches  of  Edinburgh,  which  proceeded  purely  upon 
the  footing  of  the  repealed  Act  in  1732."*  Such  was  the  state  of 
matters  with  regard  to  the  settlement  of  ministers,  when  Mr.  Wilson 
wrote  his  Defence.  Many  similar  instances  have  occurred  since  that 
time.  How  little  the  sacred  right  of  christians  to  choose  their  own 
pastors  is  respected  of  late  by  the  judicatories  of  that  church  appears 
from  the  resolution  of  the  Assembly  in  1784,  to  leave  out  of  the  in- 
structions given  their  commission  one  usually  inserted  respecting  an 
application  to  the  legislature  for  the  removal  of  the  grievance  of  pat- 
ronage ;  hereby  intimating,  that,  they  no  longer  consider  the  law  of 
patronage  as  any  grievance. 

In  short  the  Assembly  in  1734,  seems  far  from  deserving  the  character 
which  Mr.  Willison  gives  it,  of  "  a  singularly  faithful  and  reforming 
Assembly."  They  showed  some  inclination  to  restore  the  Seceding 
ministers  to  their  communion  ;  but  declined  acknowledging  the  injus- 
tice of  the  sentence  that  had  been  passed  against  them  for  their  faith- 
ful testimony  and  protestation.  These  ministers  found  the  principal 
grounds  of  their  secession  rather  aggravated  than  removed  by  the 
Act  of  this  Assembly  concerning  their  case  :  whilst  it  represented  the 
matters  in  controversy  between  them  and  the  judicatories  as  only 
small  and  trifling,  intimating  that  they,  who  contended  for  truth  and 
duty  in  such  matters,  were  disturbers  of  the  peace  of  the  church  and 
authors  of  animosities  and  divisions.  This  Assembly  appears  to  have 
been  as  much  determined,  as  the  preceding  Assemblies,  to  make  no 
acknowledgment  of  the  public  evils  specified  in  the  representations  that 
had  been  laid  before  them.  One  of  these  evils  was  the  sin  of  the  ju- 
dicatories in  licensing  so  many  to  preach  the  gospel,  who  seemed  to 
be  ashamed  of  Christ  and  him  crucified.  So  little  regard  did  they 
show  to  that  which  Mr.  Willison  represents  them  as  very  careful  to 
promote,  the  pure  preaching  of  the  gospel. 

Alex.  This  Assembly  in  1734  apppointed  a  committee  to  draw 
up  an  overture  of  an  Act  to  give  directions  as  to  the  right  preach- 
ing of  the  gospel,  and  to  restrain  the  legal  preaching  and  moral  har- 
angues of  many  not  so  agreeable  thereto.  This  had  been  several 
times  attempted  in  former  years,  but  was  still  dropt  till  now,  that  the 
Assembly  formed  and  referred  their  overture  to  their  commission  to 

*  Wilson's  Defence  of  Reformation  principles,  chap.  ii.  sect.  6th,  page  160. 


ALEXANDER  AND   RUFUS.  231 

ripen  it.  This  excelleet  overture,  having  been  transmitted  to  pres- 
byteries and  their  consent  to  it  obtained,  was  enacted  at  last  by  the 
Assembly  in  1736.* 

RuF.  There  were  indeed  many  excellent  things  in  that  Act.  But 
still  it  is  to  be  lamented,  that  neither  in  this  nor  any  other  of  their 
acts  is  there  an  acknowledgment  of  the  sin  of  the  judicatories  just  now 
mentioned ;  nor  a  plain  assertion  of  the  truth  in  direct  and  express 
opposition  to  many  pernicious  errors,  which  had  been  brought  to  the 
bar  of  some  preceding  Assemblies.  Besides,  if  the  Assembly  in  1736 
had  meant  faithfully  to  assert  the  truth  and  to  condemn  error,  how 
inconsistent  were  they  in  neglecting  to  censure  professor  Campbell  of 
St.  Andrews  ;  when  it  was  sufficiently  proved  before  them,  that  he 
had  vented  in  his  writings,  several  positions,  which  Mr.  Willison  him- 
self calls  dangerous  errors  /f  As  to  Mr.  Campbell's  explanations, 
(besides  that  some  of  them  were  far  from  deseving  the  epithet  of 
sound  or  orthodox)  the  Assembly's  admitting  them  as  a  sufficient  d-e- 
fence  in  his  case,  is  justly  disapproved  by  Mr.  Willison  himself.  ^'  For 
a  heretic,"  says  he,  "  when  in  hazard  of  censure,  may  make  a  shift  to 
put  an  orthodox  sense  upon  his  words,  if  that  will  save  him,  though 
it  should  be  quite  contrary  to  the  obvious  meaning  of  them.  And  he 
may  declare  his  owning  the  words  of  our  Confession  of  Faith ;  and 
yet  affix  a  sense  and  meaning  to  them  directly  opposite  to  the  known 
sentiments  and  doctrine  of  this  church." 

§  4.  Alex.  When  honest  ministers,  says  Mr.  Willison,  were  travel- 
ling, sweating,  laboring  and  struggling,  even  above  their  strength,  to  get 
things  that  were  wrong  reformed  and  rectified,  it  was  extremely 
afflicting  to  them,  that  the  four  brethren,  with  whom  they  formerly  had 
taken  sweet  counsel,  would  by  no  means  return  to  their  assistance. 
These  faithful  ministers  had  the  truths  contended  for  at  heart,  as  well 
as  the  four  brethren.  J 

RuF.  These  four  brethren  continued  in  conjunction  with  the  judica- 
tories, as  long  as  they  were  allowed  to  bear  a  faithful  testimony  for  do- 
ing so  ;  and  when  they  found  that  their  connection  with  these  judica- 
tories rendered  the  discharge  of  several  important  duties  of  their  office 
quite  impracticable  ;  such  as  that  of  exhibiting  a  necessary  judicial  tes- 
timony against  prevailing  errors  and  corruptions,  and  that  of  licensing 
and  ordaining  to  the  ministry,  such  persons  as  they  could  judge  to  have 
the  Lord's  call  to  that  office ;  it  then  became  a  sinful  connection,  in 
which  they  could  by  no  means  continue  any  longer  with  a  good  con- 
science.    The  question  which  they  had  to  determine  was  not,  whether 

*  Imp.  Test,  pages  139,  143. 

t  The  Assemby  in  1736  gave  no  small  occasion  of  offence  by  their  management 
in  the  affair  of  Professor  Campbell  at  St.  Andrews,  who  had  vented  several  dan- 
gerous errors  in  his  writings.    Imp.  Test,  page  153. 

t  Imp.  Test,  pages  136, 141. 


232  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

they  should  continue  in  conjunction  with  those  who,  as  well  as  them- 
selves, had  the  truths  contended  for  at  heart :  (for  these  could  not  be 
said  to  represent  the  body  of  the  Established  Church,  as  the  judicatories 
did;)  but  whether  they  should  continue  in  conjunction  with  such  as 
were  going  on  in  a  course  of  defection  from  these  truths,  and  were  now 
become  the  ruling  party  in  the  judicatories.  These  ministers  had  no 
other  alternative  than  this :  either  to  continue  in  such  a  connection  with 
that  party  as  they  knew  to  be  sinful,  or  to  make  a  secession.  With  re- 
gard to  Mr.  Willison  and  others,  who  were  esteemed  the  more  faithful 
part  of  the  ministers  in  communion  of  the  Established  Church,  they  were 
to  take  their  choice,  whether  they  would  continue  with  the  ruling  party 
or  join  with  the  Seceding  ministers.  In  the  issue,  the  most  of  those, 
who  bore  that  character,  judged  that  their  continuance  in  connection 
with  the  ruling  party  would  be  more  useful.  The  experience  of  above 
eighty  years  has  shown  the  greatness  of  their  mistake.  Their  continu- 
ance in  that  communion  has  not  reformed  the  ruling  party ;  among 
whom  latitudinarian  church  communion  and  other  deviations  from  the 
doctrine  and  order  of  the  reformed  church  of  Scotland,  as  represented 
in  her  confessions,  covenants  and  other  constitutions,  have  increased 
since  the  time  of  secession.  Nor  has  it  tended  to  preserve  their  unity ; 
for  it  is  well  known,  that  the  people  there,  having  learned  from  the  ju- 
dicatories to  disregard  the  standards  of  the  reformation,  are  divided  in- 
to a  multitude  of  sects,  propagating  error  and  disorder,  which  ought 
to  have  no  place  in  the  church  of  God. 

Alex.  Mr.  Willison  tells  us,  that  a  body  of  faithful  ministers,  after 
they  had  continued  for  two  or  three  years  to  struggle,  even  above  their 
strength,  and  thereby  had  got  many  good  things  done,  still  hoping  that 
their  brethren  would  return  to  their  assistance,  were  grievously  dis- 
couraged, when  they  saw  them  still  bent  upon  their  begun  schism ;  and 
were,  at  last,  so  disheartened  by  their  measures,  that  many  of  them  gave 
over  traveling  and  attending  the  Assemblies.* 

RuF.  As  to  the  good  things  done  by  the  Assembly  in  1*734,  we  have 
already  considered  the  most  material  of  them  ;  and  have  seen  how  de- 
fective they  were,  and  how  insufficient  to  indicate  any  sincere  design 
of  a  thorough  reformation.  That  Assembly  showed  no  disposition  to 
acknowledge  the  evils,  of  which  the  four  brethren  complained,  as  con- 
trary to  the  word  of  God,  and  to  their  own  subordinate  standards. 
Nay,  in  the  course  of  three  or  four  years  afterwards,  new  public  evils 
were  added ;  such  as  the  Assembly's  passing  over,  without  censure, 
professor  Campbell's  dangerous  errors,  that  were  brought  to  their  bar; 
and  the  compliance  of  the  most  part  of  the  ministers  of  the  Established 
Church  with  the  appointment  of  the  civil  government  to  read  an  act  of 
parliament,  concerning  captain  John  Porteus,  on  the  first  Lord's  day 
of  every  month,  for  the  space  of  a  year.     Mr.  WilHson  acknowledges 

*  Imp.  Test,  page  165. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  233 

that  the  more  faithful  part  of  the  ministers  in  the  communion  of  the  Es- 
tablished Church  were  disheartened ;  and  that  many  of  them  thought 
it  was  in  vain  to  attend  the  Assemblies.  It  seems,  they  had  no  hope  of 
getting  any  more  good  things  done.  He  lays  the  blame  of  this  upon 
the  four  brethren's  continuing  in  the  state  of  secession.  But  he  ought 
rather  to  have  laid  it  upon  the  obstinacy  of  the  judicatories  in  a  course 
of  defection  from  the  principles  of  the  reformation  :  while  it  cannot 
well  be  denied,  that  the  church  communion  of  those  who  were  esteem- 
ed more  faithful  with  the  ruling  party,  contributed  not  a  little  to  en- 
courage that  obstinacy. 

§5.  Alex.  Mr.  Willison  complains  of  the  irreverent  and  disrespect- 
ful carriage  of  these  brethren  towards  their  mother  church,  particular- 
ly in  their  declinature ;  wherein  they  disown  all  their  authority  and  ju- 
risdiction over  them,  and  pronounce,  judicially,  a  sentence  of  their  new 
erected  presbytery  against  the  General  Assembly,  and  all  the  other  judi- 
catories of  the  church ;  finding  and  declaring,  that  they  are  not  lawful 
courts  of  Christ.  They  ought  to  have  remembered,  that  the  laws  of 
God  and  man  do  highly  resent  children's  beating,  cursing  or  maltreat- 
ing their  mother,  even  when  she  is  somewhat  severe  and  out  of  her  du- 
ty to  them.  Zeal  ought  to  be  attended  with  meekness,  courteousness, 
and  humbleness  of  mind. 

RuF.  Perhaps  the  phrase  mother  church  ought  rather  to  be  applied 
to  the  catholic,  which  is  called  Jerusalem,  the  mother  of  us  all.  Gal. 
iv.  26,  than  to  any  particular  ecclesiastical  body.  But,  passing  this, 
it  is  granted,  that  a  reverent  submission  is  due  to  the  office-bearers 
and  courts  of  the  particular  church  to  which  we  belong.  This  submis- 
sion, however,  is  not  unlimited ;  it  is  only  in  the  Lord,  Our  forefa- 
thers, about  three  hundred  years  ago,  owned  the  church  of  Rome  to 
be  the  mother  church :  yet,  instead  of  blaming,  we  approve  and  com- 
mend their  casting  off  her  authority.  Persons  in  the  communion  of 
the  Church  of  England,  when  they  come  to  be  more  enlightened  in  the 
knowledge  of  the  instituted  worship  and  government  of  the  church  of 
God, — ^justly  disown  the  authority  of  that  particular  church,  and  reck- 
on themselves  fully  warranted  to  disregard  the  sentence  she  may  de- 
nounce against  them  for  disapproving  their  imposition  of  humanly  de- 
vised ceremonies  and  forms  of  prayer  in  Divine  worship,  and  the  pre- 
tended jurisdiction  of  her  diocesan  bishops  over  the  other  ministers  of 
the  word :  and,  were  these  dissenters  summoned  before  the  spiritual 
courts  of  that  church,  they  might  justly  declare,  that  they  did  not  own 
them  as  lawful  and  rightly  constituted  courts  of  Christ.  Such  was  the 
declaration  which  eight  Seceding  ministers,  having  constituted  them- 
selves, (as  the  ministers  of  Christ  have  a  right  to  do,)  into  a  presby- 
tery, made  in  their  declinature,  with  regard  to  the  judicatories  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland.  The  same  grounds  which  warranted  a  secession 
from  these  judicatories,  were  sufficient  to  warrant  the  disowning  of 
their  authority. 


234  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

Alex.  I  suppose  Mr.  Willison  was  far  from  admitting  that  the 
grounds  of  their  declinature  were  sufficient. 

RuF.  It  is  a  pity,  that  instead  of  amusing  his  readers  with  gen- 
eral reflections,  he  had  not  done,  or  attempted  to  do,  what  that  As- 
sembly declined :  that  is,  that  he  had  not  enquired  into  the  grounds  of 
this  declinature.  If  he  had  done  so,  he  would  have  found;  that  the 
facts  which  these  ministers  considered  as  sufficient  grounds  for  their 
declinature,  are  mostly  acknowledged  as  evils  and  grievances,  in  his 
own  testimony  :  such  as,  that  these  judicatories  not  only  received  in- 
truders into  their  number,  but  refused  to  censure  them  ;  that  they  had 
been  chargeable  with  promoting  corruption,  by  tolerating  the  errone- 
ous, and  by  passing  the  acts  that  tended  to  suppress  ministerial  free- 
dom in  testifying  against  public  evils;  that,  instead  of  acknowledging 
the  sinfulness  of  these  steps,  they  continued  to  justify  them ;  that  as 
the  British  Parliament  had  encroached  upon  the  kingdom  of  Christ  by 
enjoining  ministers,  under  the  penalty  of  being  deprived  of  their  seat 
in  church  courts,  to  read  from  the  pulpit  on  the  Sabbath  the  state- 
paper  before  mentioned  concerning  captain  Porteus ;  so  the  ministers 
consented  to  that  encroachment,  the  most  part  of  them  having  read  it 
in  one  shape  or  another ;  and  the  judicatories  allowing  their  compli- 
ance to  pass  without  any  censure.  The  facts  represented  by  the  As- 
sociate Presbytery  were  too  notorious  to  be  denied ;  and  so  diametri- 
cally opposite  to  the  acts  and  constitutions  of  the  Church  of  Scotland 
in  her  reforming  times,  that  no  candid  mind  would  attempt  to  recon- 
cile the  former  to  the  latter. 

§  6.  Alex.  Such  a  declinature,  says  Mr.  Willison,  and  such  a  sen- 
tence as  theirs  would  seem  to  import  no  less  than  the  unchurching 
the  whole  church,  and  unministering  the  whole  ministry,  faithful  body 
and  all ;  as  if  they  were  all  given  up  to  some  dreadful  apostacy  or 
fundamental  errors.  Fewjudicious  divines  will  adventure  to  unchurch 
the  Church  of  Scotland.  They  have  owned  others  as  corrupt  as  she, 
if  not  more^  as  churches  of  Christ.  The  glorious  Head  owned  some 
no  less  corrupt  as  golden  candlesticks;  such  as  the  seven  churches  of 
Asia,  the  churches  of  Corinth,  Galatia,  and  others.* 

Rup.  Is  there  not  a  great  want  of  candor  in  the  construction  which 
Mr.  Willison  here  puts  upon  the  secession  and  declinature  of  these 
ministers,  as  unchurching  the  Church  of  Scotland,  and  unministering 
all  her  ministers  ?  They  still  allowed  the  Church  of  Scotland,  not- 
withstanding all  her  defections,  to  be,  in  a  large  sense,  a  true  church 
of  Christ ;  as  having  those  things  which  are  essential  to  the  being  of 
his  Church,  and  holding,  by  visible  profession,  the  essentials  of  Chris- 
tianity. In  the  same  sense,  they  allow  the  Church  of  England,  and 
other  degenerate  and  corrupt  churches,  to  be  churches  of  Christ.  Our 
divines,  such  as  Durham  and  Grillespie;  in  disputing  against  the  Inde- 

*  Imp.  Test,  page  164. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  235 

pendents,  do  indeed  condemn  separation  from  true  churches.  But 
then  the  churches  they  mean,  are  such  as  profess  and  maintain  the 
true  doctrine  and  the  true  faith ;  and  churches,  in  which  discipline  is 
uprightly  exercised  as  God's  word  prescribes,  and  the  sacraments  are 
rightly  administered  by  such  ministers  as  are  lawfully  called  by  the 
Head  of  the  church.  It  is  certain,  that  the  Seceding  ministers  de- 
clared that  the  Church  of  Scotland  as  holding,  in  due  subordination 
the  holy  scriptures,  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  the  form  of 
presbyterial  church  government,  and  the  obligation  of  the  covenants 
national  and  solemn  league,  and  having  in  her  communion  a  great 
number  of  the  faithful,  who  regard  these  standards  as  bonds  of  union, 
was  to  be  distinguished  from  the  same  church  as  represented  by  her 
judicatories  persisting  obstinately  in  a  course  of  defection  from  the 
principles  exhibited  in  these  standards ;  and  making  the  establishment 
by  civil  law  the  principle  bond  of  union.  It  was  in  the  latter  point  of 
view,  and  not  in  the  former,  that  these  brethren  seceded  from  the 
Church  of  Scotland ;  and  that  they  disowned  these  judicatories,  as  not 
lawful,  nor  rightly  constituted  courts  of  Christ.  Mr.  Willison  re- 
peats the  common-place  objection,  so  much  employed  by  the  Popish 
and  Episcopal  churches  against  those  who  withdraw  from  them :  name- 
ly ;  that  though  the  churches  of  Corinth,  Galatia,  Pergamus,  and 
Thyatira  were  chargeable  with  great  errors  and  corruptions,  yet  the 
faithful  were  not  called  to  separate  from  their  communion.  But  the 
case  of  these  churches  is  not  parallel  to  that  of  the  ruling  party  in 
the  Church  of  Scotland;  unless  it  can  be  shown,  that  the  judicatories 
representiDg  any  of  these  churches  defended  the  evils  for  which  they 
were  reproved ;  and  also,  that  they  persisted  obstinately  in  doing  so 
after  the  reproofs  and  warnings  given  them  by  the  apostles.  This  has 
never  been  shown  to  have  been  the  case.  If,  however,  it  could  be 
shown,  it  would  prove  more  than  I  believe  Mr.  Willison  himself  would 
grant :  namely,  that  we  may  continue  in  communion  with  a  church, 
which,  in  her  judicial  capacity,  obstinately  persists  in  denying  the  res- 
urrection of  the  body,  in  maintaining  justification  by  works,  or  in  tol- 
erating the  lewd  opinions  and  practices  of  the  Nicolaitans.  Again, 
supposing,  that,  in  any  one  of  these  churches,  the  ruling  party,  after 
having  received  repeated  reproofs  for  the  evils  into  which  they  had 
fallen,  had  obstinately  persisted  in  them;  and  supposing  it  had  been 
impracticable  for  the  minor  part  of  the  ministers,  while  they  continued 
in  conjunction  with  the  ruling  party,  and  subordinate  to  them,  to  main- 
tain a  faithful  testimony  against  such  evils,  and  to  comply  with  the 
admonition  that  Christ  had  given  them,  particularly  in  censuring  the 
erroneous,  and  in  not  suffering  them  to  teach  and  seduce  the  Lord's 
people: — Would  it  not,  in  that  case,  have  been  the  duty  of  the  minor 
part  to  make  secession,  that  they  might  not  be  chargeable  with  dis- 
obedience to  the  Lord  Jesus,  nor  partake  of  the  sins  of  the  ruling  party  ? 
It  is  evidently  agreeable  to  the  whole  tenor  of  scripture  to  hold,  that 


236  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

this  would  have  been  their  duty.  The  Seceding  ministers  often  ob- 
serve, upon  this  subject,  that  in  judging  whether  secession  from  a  par- 
ticular church  be  warrantable,  it  is  of  great  importance  to  observe 
what  is  the  prevailing  tendency  of  the  proceedings  of  her  judicatories  ; 
whether  it  be  towards  reformation  or  towards  greater  corruption? 
Mistakes  in  the  administration  of  a  church,  while  these  are  not  obsti- 
nately persisted  in,  and  while,  in  her  profession  and  in  the  general 
tenor  of  her  proceedings,  she  is  endeavoring  to  hold  fast  what  she  has 
attained,  and  to  make  progress  in  reformation,  can  be  no  warrantable 
ground  for  secession. 

Thus,  the  church  of  Corinth  was  a  reforming  church.  The  apostle 
Paul,  in  his  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  reproves  the  neglect  of 
church  censure  in  the  case  of  an  incestuous  person;  and  charges  some 
among  them  with  denying  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  But  it  is  evi- 
dent, from  the  second  epistle,  that  the  office-bearers  there,  had  repent- 
ed of  their  negligence  and  censured  the  incestuous  persons  :  and  as, 
in  that  second  epistle,  there  is  no  hint  of  any  remaining  among  them, 
who  denied  the  resurrection  ;  and  their  godly  sorrow  on  account  of 
the  evils  which  had  prevailed,  is  described  in  the  liveliest  colors ;  it 
appears,  that  the  office-bearers  had  discharged  their  duty  in  reclaim- 
ing those  who  had  held  that  heresy,  or  in  giving  a  suitable  testimony 
against  such  as  were  obstinate.  In  a  word,  there  is  no  intimation  in 
the  second  epistle,  that  they  slighted  the  warning  which  was  given 
them  in  the  first. 

§  1.  Alex.  The  doctrine,  worship  and  government  of  the  Estab- 
lished Church  of  Scotland,  appear  to  be  so  agreeable  to  the  Scriptures, 
that  she  may  be  accounted  a  true  church,  from  which  it  is  unlawful  to 
separate. 

Rur.  I  have  already  observed,  that  the  Seceding  ministers  distin- 
guished between  the  Church  of  Scotland,  as  represented  in  her  stand- 
ards, which  had  been  adopted  in  her  reforming  times, — and  the  same 
church,  as  represented  by  her  judicatories,  that  are  now  persisting  ob- 
stinately in  a  course  of  defection  from  those  standards.*  These  min- 
isters always  averred,  that  it  was  not  in  the  former  sense,  but  only  in 
the  latter,  that  they  seceded  from  the  Church  of  Scotland.  They 
showed  that  this  church,  as  represented  by  the  ruling  party  in  her  judi- 
catories, is  chargeable  with  such  a  course  of  defection  from  the  purity 
she  had  attained,  in  doctrine,  order  and  government,  as  is  evidently 
contrary  to  those  notes  or  characters  of  a  true  Church  of  God,  which, 
in  a  former  conversation,  we  found  to  be  stated  in  the  confessions  of 
the  reformed  churches.  Eor,  said  they,  in  the  first  place,  she  refuses 
to  make  a  faithful  profession  of  the  truths  of  God  :  for  when  the 
teachers  of  gross  and  pernicious  errors  are  brought  to  her  bar,  she 
will  neither  inflict  due  censure  on  these  teachers,  nor  assert  the  truth 

*  Wilson's  Defence,  page  6.    And  Continuation,  page  373. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  237 

in  express  opposition  to  their  errors.  In  the  next  place,  she  is  far 
from  the  upright  administration  of  discipline ;  whilst  her  judicatories 
continue  in  the  tyrannical  practice  of  settling  ministers  over  congre- 
gations without  the  consent  of  the  christian  people  who  compose 
2iera ;  whilst  they  censure  ministers  for  bearing  a  faithful  testimony 
against  such  Acts  of  the  Assembly  and  proceedings  of  judicatories, 
as  are  contrary  to  the  word  of  God  and  the  subordinate  standards  of 
this  church ;  and  whilst  they  treat  representations  and  petitions  for 
the  redress  of  grievances  with  contempt.  In  the  third  place,  the  sac- 
raments are  not  administered  with  that  purity  and  rectitude,  which 
the  Divine  institution  requires  ;  while  they  are  dispensed  by  such  as, 
having  run  unsent,  and  having  been  intruded  upon  christian  con- 
gregations, ought  not  to  be  acknowledged  by  the  church  of  Christ, 
as  her  lawful  ministers.  For,  as  the  first  confession  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland  observes,  it  is  requisite  to  the  right  administration  of  the 
sacraments,  not  only  that  the  matter  of  them  be  agreeable  to  the  word 
of  God,  but  also,  that  they  be  dispensed  by  lawful  ministers,  appoint- 
ed to  the  preaching  of  the  word,  and  lawfully  called  thereto  by  some 
church. 

§  8.  Alex.  Why,  says  Mr.  Willison,  must  it  now  become  such  a 
deadly  sin,  for  worthy  men  to  go  with  Joseph  and  Nicodemus,  to 
backsliding  judicatories,  to  plead  with  their  mother,  and  to  testify 
against  her  corruptions?* 

RuF.  The  judicatories,  in  which  Joseph  and  Nicodemus  sat,  openly 
denied  the  Supreme  Deity  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  avowed  their  de- 
signs against  his  life,  John  vii.  32,  45.  They  enacted  a  most  sinful 
term  of  communion,  that,  if  any  man  should  confess  Christ,  he  should 
be  put  out  of  the  synagogue,  John  ix.  22.  According  to  this  argu- 
ment, a  person  ought  to  continue  in  church  communion  with  a  society 
of  Arians  or  Socinians  ;  even  though  they  should  make  the  denial  of 
the  Supreme  Deity  of  Jesus  Christ  a  term  of  their  communion.  This 
is  surely  more  than  Mr.  Willison  meant  to  prove.  An  argument  that 
proves  too  much,  proves  nothing. 

Alex.  Did  not  our  Lord  Jesus  and  his  disciples  continue  in  the 
communion  of  the  Jewish  Church,  which  was  then  exceedingly 
corrupt  ? 

RuF.  This  argument  also,  if  it  proved  any  thing,  would  prove  too 
much  :  it  tends  to  prove  that  there  can  be  no  secession  from  a  particu- 
lar  church,  however  corrupt,  which  would  not  be  a  secession  from  the 
catholic  church,  or  which  would  not  be  unlawful.  For,  under  the  Old 
Testament  dispensation,  the  people  of  God  made  a  profession  of  his 
name  as  the  God  of  Israel,  and  a  confession  of  their  faith  in  his  pro- 
mise, by  adhering  to  the  temple  and  its  ordinances.  The  positive  in- 
stitutions, which  were  peculiar  to  the  temple,  belonged  to  the  cere- 

*  Imp.  Test,  page  166. 


238  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

monial  law ;  which  was  the  external  bond  by  which  the  whole  visible 
church  was  then  united.  Hence,  there  could  then  be  no  separation 
from  the  temple  and  its  ordinances,  without  separation  from  the  whole 
visible  church  of  God.  But  the  case  of  the  church  under  the  New 
Testament  is  very  diiferent.  For  the  profession  of  the  true  religion, 
which  is  now  the  only  external  uniting  bond  of  the  catholic  church, 
has  no  more  relation  to  one  place  or  nation  of  the  world  than  ano- 
ther, Malachi  i.  11.  Hence,  it  cannot  now  be  necessarily  inferred  from 
the  withdrawing  of  persons  from  the  communion  of  a  particular  church, 
that  they  also  withdraw  from  the  catholic  church.  On  the  contrary, 
the  withdrawing  of  a  faithful  number  from  the  sacramental  commun- 
ion of  a  particular  church,  on  account  of  its  corruptions,  may  be  a  bles- 
sed means  of  preserving  purity  in  the  profession  of  the  true  religion ; 
and,  consequently,  of  strengthening  the  bond  of  union  in  the  catholic 
church.  The  constant  attendance  of  the  prophets,  and  of  Christ  him- 
self on  the  temple  and  its  ordinances,  wh'le  they  opposed  the  cor- 
ruptions of  the  Jewish  church,  was  then  no  more  than  a  steadfast 
adherence  to  the  profession  of  the  true  religion,  as  the  bond  of  union 
in  the  catholic  church ;  an  example  which  the  Seceding  ministers 
judged  they  could  not  have  followed,  if  they  had  continued  in  minis- 
terial and  sacramental  communion  with  the  ruling  party  in  the  Estab- 
lished Church  of  Scotland,  who  persisted  obstinately  in  causing  divi- 
sions and  offences,  contrary  to  the  faithful  profession  of  the  christian 
religion. 

§  9.  Alex.  These  brethren  might  have  continued  in  communion 
with  the  Established  Church,  while  no  sinful  terms  of  communion  were 
imposed  on  them. 

RuF.  According  to  what  was  observed  in  our  former  conversations, 
it  cannot  be  safely  granted,  that  we  may  warrantably  hold  sacramen- 
tal communidn  with  any  particular  church,  while  we  cannot  approve 
of  her  public  profession,  whatever  she  may,  or  may  not  require  of  us 
otherwise.  The  view  we  have  taken  of  sacramental  or  church  com- 
munion which  is  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God,  leads  us  to  conclude, 
that  we  ought  not  to  have  that  communion  with  a  particular  church, 
which  has  any  thing  in  the  matter  of  her  public  profession,  or  in  her 
avowed  and  habitual  manner  of  maintaining  it,  contrary  to  that  word  ; 
or  whose  profession  and  public  administrations  are  not  such  as  accord 
with  the  character  of  the  church  of  God,  as  the  pillar  and  ground  of 
truth.  In  the  first  part  of  the  last  century,  a  considerable  body  of 
Dissenters  in  Ireland,  refused  to  admit  confessions  of  faith  enacted  by 
the  authority  of  the  church  to  be  tests  of  orthodoxy  or  soundness  in  the 
faith  ;  and  inisisted,  that  no  other  test  should  be  required  as  a  term  of 
communion,  than  an  acknowledgment  of  the  truth  in  the  express  words 
of  scripture.  On  this  account,  a  great  number  of  these  brethren  de- 
clared a  secession  from  them  :  and  they  had  good  reason  to  do  so  ; 
since  Arians,  Socinians,  Arminians  and  other  heretics  will  not  scruple 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  239 

to  make  such  an  acknowledgnient ;  while  the  sense  they  put  upon  the 
words  of  scripture  is  quite  opposite  to  the  scope  and  design  of  the  Holy- 
Spirit  speaking  in  the  scriptures.*  Here  is  an  example  of  a  just  and 
necessary  secession  ;  where  there  was  no  formal  or  positive  impo- 
sition of  any  unlawful  term  of  communion.  The  ground  of  it  was 
only  a  want  of  that  exhibition  of  Divine  truth  which  characteries  the 
church  of  the  living  God.  But  the  case  was  otherwise  with  the  Se- 
ceding ministers :  they  found,  that  unwarrantable  terras  of  commun- 
ion were  imposed  by  some  Acts  of  the  Assembly.  Thus,  according 
to  the  decisions  of  the  Assembly,  in  the  case  of  Ebenezer  Erskine  and 
his  three  brethren,  no  minister  was  allowed  to  testify  from  the  pulpit 
against  acts  of  Assembly  and  proceedings  of  church  judicatories, 
however  contrary  to  the  constitutional  principles  of  the  Church  Scot- 
land :  nor  was  any  minister  allowed  to  protest  for  his  own  exonera- 
tion, against  sentences  or  decisions  of  the  Assembly,  though  nearly 
affecting  the  public  cause  of  Grod,  and  restraining  ministerial  freedom 
and  faithfulness  in  testifying  against  public  defections.  And  if  a 
minister  should  refuse  to  submit  to  be  rebuked  by  the  judicatories  for 
his  faithfulness  in  the  instances  now  mentioned,  he  had  nothing  to 
expect  but  suspension,  and  the  dissolution  of  the  pastoral  relation  be- 
tween him  and  his  congregation.  Again,  there  was  an  Act  of  the 
Assembly  in  1733,  discharging  the  ministers  of  Dumfermline  presby- 
tery, under  pain  of  the  highest  censure,  to  admit  any  of  the  parish  of 
Kinross  to  sealing  ordinances,  without  the  permission  of  the  incum- 
bent there,  who  was  an  intruder.  By  this  act,  ministers  are  bound 
up  from  dispensing  sealing  ordinances  to  such  of  the  Lord's  people 
as  could  not  conscientiously  submit  to  the  ministry  of  intruders.  By 
an  Act  of  the  Assembly  in  the  year  1720,  ministers  are  prohibited 
"  to  recommend  by  preaching,  writing,  or  by  printing  the  book,  en- 
titled, the  Marrow  of  Modern  Divinity,  or  in  discourse  to  say  any 
thing  in  its  favor ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  are  enjoined  and  required  to 
warn  and  exhort  their  people,  into  whose  hands  that  book  may  come, 
not  to  read  or  use  the  same."  Now  a  sinful  term  of  communion  is 
imposed,  when  a  person  is  required  in  a  particular  case,  to  cease  from 
doing  good.  But  the  Seceding  ministers,  though  they  did  not  look 
upon  the  Marrow  as,  like  the  Scriptures,  absolutely  faultless ;  nor 
did  they  put  it  on  a  level  with  the  subordinate  standards  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland  ;  yet,  they  judged  that  they  were  doing  good, 
when  they  recommended  that  treatise  as,  in  the  general  tenor  and  man- 
ifect  design  of  it,  a  good  and  useful  book  :  a  book,  remarkable  for 
setting  the  difference  between  the  law  and  the  gospel,  between  the 
covenant  of  works  and  the  covenant  of  grace,  in  a  clear  light ;  and 
for  directing  to  the  true  way  of  attaining  gospel  holiness.  On  these 
accounts,  it  has  recommended  itself  to  the  consciences  of  many  judi- 

*  See  Wilson's  Defence  of  the  Reformation  Principles,  &c.,  page  49. 


240  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS- 

cious  ministers  and  private  christians.  Indeed  several  precious  truths 
of  the  gospel  received  a  deep  wound  by  the  Assembly's  Act  condemn- 
ing that  book. 

§   10.  Alex.  The  secession  of  these  ministers  was  a  lamentable 
schism. 

Rup.  The  word  schism  is  used  several  times  in  the  first  epistle  to 
the  Corinthians,  Chap.  i.  10,  "  I  beseech  you  brethren,  that  there  be 
no  divisions  among  you  ;"  and  chap.  xi.  18,  "I  hear,  that  there  are 
divisions  among  you. ''  The  original  word  divisions  is,  in  both  these 
passages,  schisms.  These  were  differences  and  janglings,  that  took 
place  amongst  the  members  of  that  church,  who  still  remained  joined 
together  in  external  church  communion.  The  schism  meant  in  these 
texts  was  a  partial  and  contentious  preferring  of  one  to  another  of 
their  ministers  and  teachers,  who  were  holding  the  same  testimony  of 
Jesus;  as  when  one  said,  I  am  of  Paul,  another,  I  am  of  Apollos,  1 
Corinth,  iii.  4.  Such  was  the  schism  testified  against  by  an  act  of  the 
Assembly  in  1647,  enjoining  every  member  in  each  congregation  to  at- 
tend the  ministry  of  his  own  pastor ;  at  the  same  time  charging  every 
minister  to  be  diligent  in  fulfilling  his  ministry.  Such  is  the  sense  in 
which  the  scripture  uses  the  word  schism.  Hence  it  seems  improper 
to  apply  this  term  to  any  regular  secession  from  particular  churches, 
which  their  corruptions  have  rendered  necessary.  But  even  in  the 
sense  of  causeless  separation  it  is  evident  from  the  review  we  have  ta- 
ken of  the  case  of  the  Seceding  ministers,  that  we  cannot,  with  any 
color  of  reason,  accuse  them  of  schism ;  for  when  their  secession  took 
place,  the  evils  of  the  judicatoi'ies  were  many,  great,  obstinately  per- 
sisted in,  and  still  increasing;  all  other  means  of  reclaiming  them  hav- 
ing proved  ineffectual.  Nay,  considering  the  evils  which  occasioned 
the  secession,  we  will  be  under  a  necessity  of  acknowledging  these 
judicatories,  that  ejected  the  four  brethren,  to  be  separatists.  For, 
as  the  pious  Mr.  Rutherford  justly  observes,  "When  the  greatest  part 
of  a  church  makes  defection  from  the  truth,  the  lesser  part  remaining 
sound,  the  greatest  part  is  the  church  of  separatists."*  They  who 
persist  obstinately  in  a  course  of  defection,  are  the  party  who  break 
the  peace  of  the  church ;  who  act  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  gospel, 
and  do  a  great  deal  of  hurt  to  religion  and  serious  godliness;  not  the 
smaller  part  who  make  secession,  that  they  may  bear  testimony  to  the 
truth,  and  hold  fast  that  which  they  have  received,  according  to  the 
charge  which  our  Lord  gives  the  churches,  Revel,  ii.  25  ;  iii.  11. 

Alex.  Separation  is  contrary  to  the  many  injunctions  in  scripture 
of  unity  and  brotherly  love, — contrary  to  the  end  of  Christ's  death, 
and  of  his  intercession  ; — it  is  a  rending  of  his  seamless  coat. 

RuF.  Such  a  declamation  on  the  general  topics  of  love  and  unity 
is  often  used  against  the  Seceding  ministers  without  ever  touching  the 

*  Due  Right  of  Presbytery,  page  255. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  241 

question  as  to  the  lawfulness  of  their  secession.  We  have  equal  rea- 
son to  expatiate  on  the  evil  of  such  an  union  with  corrupt  judicator- 
ies as  would  preclude  ministers  from  the  faithful  exercise  of  their  of- 
fice, particularly,  in  bearing  a  judicial  as  well  as  a  doctrinal  testimony 
against  error  and  corruption.  It  is  the  common  duty  of  christians  to 
bear  testimony  by  their  profession  and  private  conversation  against 
errors  which  are  pubhcly  propagated  ;  but  a  public  and  judicial  testi- 
mony belongs  to  the  office  of  ministers.  When  the  keys  with  which 
Christ  has  entrusted  the  ministers  of  the  gospel  are  abused  by  a  cor- 
rupt majority  in  any  particular  church  to  the  subversion  of  the  truth, 
ought  not  those  who  continue  faithful,  though  few,  to  make  use  of 
these  keys  in  supporting  it  ?  are  we  not  bound  to  follow  the  example 
of  Christ  in  bearing  testimony  to  the  truth  ?  *'For  this  end,''  said 
our  Lord  Jesus,  "was  I  born,  and  for  this  end  came  I  into  the  world, 
that  I  might  bear  witness  to  the  truth.''  The  union  which  is  the  end  of 
Christ's  death  and  intercession,  is  the  union  of  his  people  in  their  en- 
deavor to  keep  Christ's  word  ;  and  in  the  study  of  his  holiness  ;  with- 
out which  they  cannot  have  communion  with  the  Father  and  with 
the  Son,  John  xvii.  6,  It,  2L  The  unity  for  which  Christ  intercedes, 
is  the  unity  of  the  spirit : — not  of  the  Spirit  of  Terror,  or  any  carnal 
policy,  which  from  worldly  and  selfish  motives,  declines  any  public 
appearance  against  the  evils  of  the  times  in  which  we  live ; — but  of 
the  Spirit  of  truth,  guiding  us  into  all  the  truths  of  Christ ; — of  the 
Spirit  of  counsel  and  of  might,  inspiring  us  with  a  holy  resolution  to 
keep  the  word  of  Christ's  patience^  however  many  forsake  it ; — of  a 
Spirit  that  bears  witness  of  Christ,  causing  us  also  to  bear  witness ; 
— of  a  Spirit  of  glory  and  of  God,  resting  upon  those  who  are  re- 
proached for  the  name  of  Christ. 

§  11.  Alex,  The  Seceders  seem  to  hold  principles  of  separation 
similar  to  those  of  the  ancient  Novatians  aud  Donatists,  and  of  the 
English  Brownists. 

RuF.  This  comparison  is  manifestly  unjust.  We  had  occasion  for- 
merly to  consider  the  principles  of  the  Novatians  and  Donatists,  and 
also  those  of  the  Brownists  with  regard  to  church  communion.  They 
were  quite  contrary  to  the  principles  of  the  Seceding  ministers.  The 
ground  upon  which  these  ministers  seceded  from  the  Established  Church 
as  represented  by  her  judicatories  was  a  course  of  defection  obstinate- 
ly persisted  in  from  various  parts  of  reformation  which  she  had  for- 
merly attained.  They  never  pleaded  for  positive  signs  of  regenera- 
tion as  a  qualification  necessary  to  the  admission  of  persons  as  church 
members.  They  never  allowed,  with  the  Brownists,  that  the  sacra- 
ments are  polluted  to  the  sincere  partakers  of  them  by  the  sins  of  fel- 
low worshipers.  Though  there  are  some  protestant  churches,  that 
have  so  many  things,  in  their  profession  and  habitual  administration, 
contrary  to  the  scriptural  characters  of  a  true  church  of  Christ,  that 
they  judge  it  their  duty  to  bear  testimony  against  them,  while  they  ob- 
16 


242  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

stinately  persist  in  these  things,  in  the  way  of  declining  actual  com- 
munion with  them ;  yet  they  are  far,  very  far  from  unchurching  them, 
or  denying  them  to  be  true  churches  of  Christ,  or  from  putting  them 
upon  a  level  with  the  Popish  church.* 

§  12  Alex.  The  secession  of  these  ministers  is  unprecedented  in 
the  history  of  the  church  of  Scotland.  Great  defections  prevailed 
there  between  the  years  1596  and  1 638.  In  that  period,  the  honest 
party  witnessed  against  these  defections  without  erecting  themselves 
into  different  judicatories,  or  any  thing  like  separation.  They  did  so 
in  a  way  of  church  communion. f 

KuF.  It  is  necessary  to  observe  the  difference  between  the  course 
of  defection  between  1596  and  1638  and  the  course  of  defection  which 
occasioned  the  secession  of  these  ministers.  The  former  was  the  work 
of  King  James  and  his  court,  in  order  to  introduce  perlacy.  He  first 
attempted  to  persuade  some  of  the  ministers  to  sit  and  vote  in  parlia- 
ment. In  the  next  place,  he  labored  to  set  up  constant  moderators 
in  presbyteries  and  synods.  And,  at  last,  he  tried  to  introduce  the 
use  of  certain  Popish  ceremonies  and  of  a  liturgy  into  the  public  wor- 
ship. But  he  could  never  get  what  could  be  called  a  free  and  lawful 
assembly  to  authorize  any  of  these  things.  Hence  the  constant  cry 
of  ministers  and  presbyteries  in  that  period  was  for  such  an  assembly 
consisting  of  members  chosen  according  to  the  form  and  order  of  the 
church  of  Scotland.     Thus  the  course  of  defection  between  1596  and 

*  There  may  be  churches,  says  the  celebratedVitringa,  called  christian,  in  which, 
though  we  do  not  externally  communicate  with  them  at  the  Lord's  table,  we  ac- 
knowledge there  are  true  christians,  belonging  to  the  mystical  body  of  Christ ;  in 
the  congregation,  for  example,  of  the  Greek  church,  of  the  Mennonites,  of  the  Re- 
monstrants, of  the  brethren  of  the  Augsburgh  Confession,  The  external  com- 
munion of  christians,  for  various  reasons,  which  were  deemed  convincing  by  the 
ancient  church,  is  confined  within  narrower  bounds  than  the  internal.  So  that  if 
we  separate  from  some  congregations  of  christians,  the  separation  is  only  hypo- 
thetical and  on  account  of  those  errors  which  we  disapprove  and  renounce  ;  leaving 
them,  in  other  respects,  to  the  judgment  of  Christ.  Many  prefer  a  discipline 
which  is  thus  more  restricted,  to  that  which  is  more  relaxed  ;  lest  the  public  com- 
munion of  christians  with  those  whom  they  know  to  be  holding  grievous  error, 
even  though  it  be  not  fundamental,  should  be  considered  as  a  communion  with 
them  in  that  error,  or  at  least  should  be  an  occasion  of  corrupting  the  doctrine  of 
the  true  faith.  Possunt  dari  ecclesiae  christiani  nominis  cum  quibus  externe  non 
colimus  communionem  mensae  saerse,  in  quibus  nihilominus  agnoscamus  veros 
dari  christianos,  qui  partem  faciant  mystici  corporis  Christi ;  quales  omnino  dari 
credimus  in  caetibus  ecclesise  Graeese,  Mennonilarum,  Remonstrantium  et  Augus- 
tanae  Confessionis,  qiios  solos  exempli  causa  nunc  allego.  Externa  enim  christian- 
orum  communio  ob  varias  rationes,  quas  prudentia  veteribus  christianis  suasit, 
arctiores  limites  restringitnr  quam  interna:  ut  adeo  si  nos  a  quibusdam  alliis  coe- 
tibus  externe  separemus,  id  solummodo  hypothetice  et  restricte  fiat  cum  respectu 
ad  illos  in  doctrina  aut  cultu  errores  quos  fugimus  et  aversamur :  eaetera  relinqui- 
mus  judicio  Christi.  Plerique  existimant,  prodentiae  est  esse  subterfugere  pericnlum 
nimiae  libertat«s  et  indulgentiae  ac  praestare,  ut  arctetur  quam  laxetur  disciplina, 
ne  christiani  cum  iis  publicam  exercendo  communionem,  quos  in  gravi  (licet  forte 
non  fundamentali)  errore  versari  putant,  hoc  ipso  venire  censeantur  in  erroris  illius 
communionem,  vel  saltem  occasionem  praebeant  corrumpendae  verae  fidei  doctriuae. 
Observat.  Sacrae,  Lib.  v.,  cap.  ix.,  §  13. 

t  Imp.  Test  page  163. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  243 

1638  was  carried  on  violently  by  the  civil  power.  But  that  which 
occasioned  the  secession  of  these  ministers  was  carried  on  by  assem- 
blies chosen  by  presbyteries  after  the  usual  manner.  Thus,  there  was 
not  the  same  cause  for  secession  from  the  church  of  Scotland  as  rep- 
resented in  her  judicatories  in  the  former  of  these  periods,  as  in  the 
latter.  But  it  is  farther  to  be  observed,  that  it  is  not  true,  that  the 
contending  of  the  honest  party  in  the  period  between  1596  and  1638, 
was  always  in  a  way  of  church  communion  with  the  corrupt  party. 

For,  in  the  first  place,  many  ministers  refused  to  acknowledge  the 
authority  of  the  pretended  assemblies  that  were  then  held  by  the  au- 
thority of  the  court ;  such  as  that  which  met  at  Perth  in  the  year  1618 
and  passed  what  are  called  the  five  articles  of  Perth.  Mr.  C alder- 
wood  says,  the  greatest  part  of  the  best  qualified  ministers  through 
the  land,  and  of  the  most  zealous  professors,  refused  the  authority  of 
the  Perth  Assembly.  Several  presbyteries,  ministers  and  professors 
who  disowned  the  authority  of  these  pretended  assemblies,  must  then 
have  been  rather  considered  as  seceding  from  them,  than  as  holding 
church  communion  with  them. 

In  the  second  place,  the  presbyteries  continued  in  this  period  to 
meet  regularly,  for  the  exercise  of  church  discipline,  without  any 
subordination  to  the  bishops,  and  consequently  not  in  church  commu- 
nion with  them.  Mr.  Wodrow  in  his  history=^  says.  Our  first  prelates 
were  not  against  the  meetings  of  presbytery  in  their  several  jurisdic- 
tions, but  they  continued  to  meet  regularly,  and  had  almost  the  whole 
of  church  discipline  in  their  hands.  Mr.  Wodrow  adds,  from  the  re- 
marks of  the  reverend  Mr.  Robert  Douglas,  that  he,  Mr  Douglas, 
dealt  with  the  statesmen  in  the  year  1662  not  to  prohibit  presbyteries, 
but  to  allow  them  to  stand  as  under  the  former  bishops:  for,  added  he, 
if  they  were  pulled  down,  and  set  up  in  subordination  to  the  bishops, 
no  honest  minister  will  keep  them.  From  this  account  of  Mr.  Doug- 
las it  appears,  that  before  the  year  1638  presbyteries  were  not  pulled 
down,  and  that  they  did  not  at  that  time  subsist  in  subordination  to 
the  bishops. 

In  the  third  place,  the  practice  and  sentiments  of  some  eminent 
ministers  of  that  period  were  in  favor  of  a  secession  from  the  corrupt 
judicatories  supported  by  the  court.  Mr.  Calderwood  in  his  history, f 
relates,  that,  ''  at  a  conference  he  had  with  some  of  the  bishops,  they 
urged  him  to  repair  to  the  synods ;  particularly  the  bishop  of  Caith- 
ness said  to  him,  come  and  say,  Hie  sum,  [that  is,  I  am  here]  and 
then  do  as  you  please.  But  Mr.  Calderwood  replied,  that  hie  sum 
is  the  question  ;"  adding  some  weighty  reasons  why  he  could  not  be 
present  at  their  synods.  Mr.  JohnWelch  in  a  letter  directed  to  Mr.  Bruce 
after  charging  the  bishops  with  perfidy  and  apostacy,  concludes, 
"  Therefore,  they  are  not  to  be  heard  any  more,  in  public,  in  consis- 


*  Vol.  6,  pages  117, 118.  t  Page  687. 


244  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

tories,  in  colleges,  or  in  synods ;  for  what  fellowship  hath  light  with 
darkness. "  Mr.  James  Melvil,  in  a  letter  to  one  of  his  brethren  in  pris- 
on, has  the  following  words  :  "  Alas  !  if  that  spirit  of  zeal  and  cour- 
age, which  sometimes  reigned  in  our  kirk,  were  kindled  up  again,  it 
might  make  a  few  from  every  presbytery  and  province,  convene  to- 
gether in  the  name  of  Christ,  and  censure  these  corruptions  of  the 
kirk  to  the  uttermost."  Mr.  Robert  Bruce  was  rejected  from  his 
charge  in  the  year  1600,  and  banished  his  native  country ;  because  he 
had  not  such  satisfaction  about  the  truth  of  Gowry's  conspiracy,  that 
he  could  conscientiously  give  thanks  to  the  Lord  for  the  king-s  deliv- 
erance from  it.  After  this  time  he  never  sat  in  any  of  the  judicator- 
ies. Though  he  was  allowed  to  return  from  banishment,  yet  he  was 
confined,  first  to  his  own  house  at  Kinnaird,  and  afterwards  at  Inver- 
ness and  other  places.  But  wherever  he  was,  he  still  continued  to 
exercise  his  ministry  with  great  success,  without  any  conjunction  with 
the  judicatories. 

Alex.  Mr.  Willison,  in  his  Testimony,  laments  the  division  which 
was  occasioned  by  some  insnaring  question  proposed  by  Charles  and 
the  Parliment  in  1650  concerning  the  admission  of  persons  who  had 
been  opposers  of  the  covenanted  reformation,  in  places  trust,  civil  and 
military,  upon  a  public  profession  of  their  repentance.  Those  who 
were  for  the  admission  of  such  to  places  of  power  and  trust  were  call- 
ed public  resolutioners  ;  and  those  against  it,  protesters.  Eminently 
great  and  good  men  were  upon  both  sides ;  and  some  no  less  eminent 
joined  neither  side.  Perhaps  the  protesters,  who  were  the  minor  par- 
ty, carried  their  opposition  too  far  on  so  narrow  a  point ;  but  they 
did  not  state  a  secession  upon  it.  Mr.  Currie,  a  minister  of  the  Es- 
tablished Church  asserted,  that  Mr.  Guthrie  and  the  other  protesters 
in  his  day  were  as  opposite  in  principle  and  practice  to  the  Associate 
Presbytery,  as  are  nadir  and  zenith,  or  light  and  darkness. 

Rut.  This  remark  is  sufficiently  confuted  by  Mr.  Wilson  of  Perth 
in  a  passage  which  I  shall  read  to  you  from  the  Continuation  of  his 
excellent  Defence  of  Reformation  Principles;*  a  writer  whose  infor- 
mation on  the  subject  cannot  be  disputed. 

"  The  principles  of  the  Associate  Presbytery,"  says  he  '^  which  are 
fully  and  plainly  laid  down  in  the  assertory  part  of  the  Act  and  Tes- 
timony, are  the  same  with  those  which  were  professed  and  maintain- 
ed by  James  Guthrie  and  the  other  protesters  of  the  day.  As  to  the 
manner  of  testifying  for  these  principles,  the  Associate  Presbytery  do 
testify  in  the  same  way  and  manner  that  the  eminent  miaister  Mr. 
James  Guthrie  and  the  other  protesters  in  his  day  did  testify  ;  as  may 
appear  from  the  following  particular  instances. " 

"  Imo,  The  protesters  in  the  former  period  disowned  the  authority 
and  constitution  of  the  assemblies  that  met  in  the  years  1651   and 

»  Pages  501—504. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  245 

1652  :  Even  so  the  Associate  Presbytery  have,  upon  just  and  weighty 
grounds,  disowned  the  authority  and  constitution  of  the  present  judi- 
catories, by  their  act  dated  at  Edinburgh,  May,  1739." 

"  2do,  Mr.  Guthrie  and  the  other  protesters  in  his  day,  continued  to 
exercise  their  ministry,  after  some  of  them  were  deposed  by  the  pre- 
tended judicatories  at  that  time.  And  I  suppose  it  will  not  be  con- 
troverted by  any  that  knows  the  history  of  our  church,  that  these  de- 
posed ministers  continued  to  exercise  their  ministry  in  as  free  and 
full  a  manner  as  formerly.  Even  so  the  ministers  of  the  Associate 
Presbytery,  the  most  part  of  them,  have  been  prosecuted  unto  deposi- 
tion by  the  pretended  assemblies  at  this  day  ;  but  do  continue  to  ex- 
ercise their  ministry  notwithstanding  the  pretended  sentence  passed 
against  them.'' 

"3^10,  Mr.  Guthrie  and  the  protesters  in  his  day,  met  together  in 
distinct  judicatores,  and  exercised  the  keys  of  government  and  dis- 
cipline in  a  distinct  judicative  capacity  from  those  who  were  called 
public  resolutioners.  Even  so  the  Seceding  ministers  exercised  the 
key  of  government  and  discipline  in  a  distinct  capacity  from  the  pres- 
ent judicatories.  There  was  a  presbytery  of  Linlithgow,  composed  of 
public  resolutioners,  and  another,  bearing  the  same  name,  composed 
of  protesters.  In  the  bounds  of  Stirling  presbytery,  the  protesters 
and  the  public  resolutioners  met  in  distinct  presbyteries ;  the  former 
at  Stirling,  and  the  other  at  Alloa.  The  public  resolutioners,  in 
their  paper,  entitled.  The  Protestation,  given  in  to  the  General  As- 
sembly, July  21st,  1652,  say,  '  The  protesters  meeting  then  in  Edin- 
burgh without  order,  after  a  little  pause,  did  constitute  themselves  in 
an  ecclesiastical  judicatory,  wherein  magisterially  they  define  things  so 
prejudicial  to  us,  as  not  only  perfectly  obstructed  all  peace,  but  also 
sounded  the  alarm  to  a  new  conflict,  by  emitting  a  paper,  wherein 
they  peremptorily  conclude,  among  the  chief  causes  of  the  Lord's  con- 
troversy with  the  land,  the  public  resolutions  and  the  preceding  as- 
sembly to  have  a  special  place.'" 

"  The  paper  now  mentioned,  is  written  on  the  resolution  side  ;  and 
therefore,  the  above  expressions  are  in  a  style  reflecting  upon  the 
protesters.  But  we  may  gather  from  them  the  following  plain  facts. 
Imo,  That  the  protesters  did  meet  at  Edinburgh,  and  did  constitute 
themselves  into  an  ecclesiastical  judicatory,  distinct  from  those  of  the 
public  resolutioners.  2do,  That  the  protesters  did  exercise  the  keys 
of  government  and  discipline  in  a  distinct  judicative  capacity.  This 
they  did  three  ways :  1st,  They  condemned  the  preceding  Assembly. 
2nd,  They  condemned  the  public  resolutions  :  which  two,  they  ju- 
dicially condemn,  as  having  a  special  place  in  the  chief  causes  of  God's 
controversy  with  the  land.  3cl,  They  emit  a  paper  containing  their 
above  conclusion  :  and  this  is  the  same  upon  the  matter  with  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Associate  Presbytery  in  emitting  their  Act  and  Testi- 
mony ^ 


246  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

From  the  instances  now  given,  it  appears,  that  Ihe  practice  of  the 
Seceding  ministers,  in  constituting  themselves  into  an  ecclesiastical 
judicatory,  distinct  from  the  judicatories  of  the  Establi^lied  Church, was 
not  unprecedented  even  in  the  history  of  the  church  of  kscotland. 

§  18.  Alex.  These  ministers  have  set  an  example  of  separation 
which  has  been  too  much  followed.  The  divisive  spirit  that  now  pre- 
vails, tramples  upon  all  order,  and  tends  to  produce  universal  con- 
fusion. 

RuF.  Who  are  the  greatest  promoters  of  this  disorder  ?  Those 
who  zealously  contend  that  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  only  Head  of  the 
church,  has  appointed  such  a  particular  form  of  presbyterial  church 
government  as  is  calculated  in  the  best  manner  for  the  preservation 
of  both  truth  and  peace  ?  or  those  who  hold  that  there  is  no  particu- 
lar form  of  church  goverment  of  Christ's  institution  ?  The  Receding 
ministers  are  most  decisively  of  the  former  persuasion  ;  while  it  is  too 
evident,  that  the  latter  opinion  prevails  among  their  opposers.  The 
truth  is,  there  is  no  other  basis  upon  which  order  and  peace  will  ever 
be  restored  to  the  church  of  Christ,  than  that  of  submission  to  his  au- 
thority, determining  the  form  of  church  government  in  opposition  to 
prelacy  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  independency  on  the  other. 

With  regard  to  the  example  of  the  secession  made  by  these  minis- 
ters, I  am  persuaded  that  there  would  be  fewer  separations,  (and  no 
unnecessary  ones,)  from  particular  churches,  if  none  would  withdraw 
from  them  but  upon  parallel  ground,  and  in  the  same  manner,  in 
which  these  ministers  withdrew  from  the  church  of  Scotland,  as  she 
is  represented  in  her  judicatories.  The  ground  upon  which  they  pro- 
ceeded in  their  secession  was  no  private  or  personal  cause  of  their  own, 
but  the  public  cause  of  the  Redeemer's  Spiritual  Kingdom  ;  it  was  no 
new  paradox  or  doubtful  opinion,  but  principles  certainly  contained 
in  the  word  of  God,  and  plainly  declared  in  the  subordinate  standards 
of  that  very  church  from  which  they  seceded.  Nor  did  they  take  this 
step,  till  they  were  precluded  from  every  other  way  in  which  they 
could  maintain  a  faithful  testimony  against  the  deviations  which  had 
been,  and  were  continuing  to  be  made  from  these  principles.  In  short, 
the  design  of  their  secession  was  no  other  than  that  of  maintaining  the 
measure  of  reformation,  or  of  conformity  to  the  word  of  God  in  doc- 
trine, worship,  discipline  and  government,  which  the  church  of  Scot- 
land had  once  attained. 

Alex.  The  shadows  of  the  evening  admonish  us  to  put  a  stop  to 
our  conversation  at  present.  I  hope  we  shall  have  another  oppor- 
tunity afterwards  of  pursuing  our  inquiry  into  the  principles  of  the 
Seceders. 

Rup.  Before  we  part,"  allow  me  to  add  two  remarks  : 

The  first  is,  that,  as  these  four  ministers  did  not  make  secession 
from  the  Established  Church  as  represented  in  her  judicatories,  till 
they  found  that  they  could  not  avoid  it  without  retracting  a  necessa- 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  247 

ry  protestation  which  they  had  made  for  the  liberty  of  testifying 
against  the  corruptions  of  these  judicatories  ;  so  their  act  of  consti- 
tuting themselves  into  a  presbytery  towards  the  end  of  the  year  1733, 
was  no  rash  or  inconsiderate  step.  "  Near  two  days,"  says  Mr.  Wil- 
son, who  was  one  of  them,  "  were  spent  in  prayer  and  serious  reason- 
ing on  this  head,  in  which  they  endeavored  to  compare  the  word  and 
providence,  together.  In  their  meetings  on  these  days,"  adds  he, 
*^  and  particularly  in  the  act  of  prayer  by  which  the  presbytery  was 
constituted,  they  experienced  something  of  the  Lord's  gracious  pres- 
ence and  special  countenance." 

The  other  remark  is.  That  the  ministers  who  composed  the  Asso- 
ciate Presbytery  withdrew  gradually  from  the  communion  of  the  Es- 
tablished Church,  as  they  attained  more  enlarged  views  of  the  cause 
in  which  they  were  engaged.  The  rise  of  the  secession,  says  a  judi- 
cious writer,  who  was  well  acquainted  with  these  ministers  and  their 
proceedings,*  was  the  dawning  of  a  new  day,  a  day  which,  at  first, 
was  known  only  to  the  Lord.  The  four  brethren  were  far  from  act- 
ing upon  any  preconceived  plan.  The  Lord  led  them  by  a  way  they 
knew  not,  from  one  step  to  another.  In  the  beginning  of  their  dis- 
pute with  the  judicatories  of  the  Established  Church,  they  had  no 
apprehension  of  a  separation.  As  Luther  had,  at  first,  but  a  very 
imperfect  knowledge  of  the  Popish  abominations  and  of  the  reforma- 
tion which  was  necessary;  so  these  ministers,  for  several  years, 
found  themselves  but  gradually  emerging  out  of  the  darkness  of  a 
long  and  deep  apostacy  from  the  covenanted  reformation.  Though 
the  occasion  of  the  secession  was  the  testifying  of  these  ministers 
against  some  particular  evils  which  had  recently  taken  place  ;  yet 
even  the  first  statement  of  it  in  1733  was  upon  the  general  ground  of 
a  course  of  defection,  persisted  in  by  the  judicatories  from  the  prin- 
ciples of  that  reformation. 

The  Associate  Presbytery  advanced  a  step  further  in  stating  the 
grounds  of  the  secession,  when  they  published  what  has  been  called 
their  Extrajudicial  Testimony  in  May,  1734 ;  the  design  of  which  was 
to  explain  the  reasons  of  the  protestations  which  they  had  entered, 
the  preceding  year,  before  the  commission  of  the  General  Assembly. 
For,  in  that  work,  some  particular  evils,  not  mentioned  in  their  for- 
mer representations  before  the  judicatories  are  brought  forward 
among  the  reasons  of  the  secession ;  and  the  introduction  opened  the 
way  for  a  further  enlargement  of  their  Testimony  by  some  historical 
observations  on  the  state  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,,  both  in  her  re- 
forming and  in  her  declining  periods. 

But  the  Associate  Presbytery  made  the  chief  advance  in  exhibiting 
the  grounds  of  their  secession,  by  enacting  dnd  publishing  the  Judi- 
cial Testimony.     When  they  entered  on  the  formation  of  this  deed, 

Display  of  the  Secession  Testimony,  vol.  2,  pages  383,  383. 


248  ALEXANDEE  AND  KUFUS- 

they  determined  to  trace  the  defections  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  as 
far  back  as  the  year  1650  ;  being  convinced  of  the  connection  be- 
tween a  sincere  and  particular  mourning  for  the  sins  of  the  present 
time,  and  the  particular  acknowledgment  of  the  defections  of  former 
periods  ;  and  that  present  evils  are  the  native  consequences  of  former 
iniquities. 

The  design  of  the  Judicial  Testimony  was  much  promoted  by  a  new 
Formula  or  set  of  questions,  which  the  Associate  Presbytery  appoint- 
ed to  be  put  to  ministers  at  their  ordination,  in  place  of  the  Formula 
used  by  the  Established  Church,  which  had  been  agreed  on  by  the 
Assembly  in  1111.  For  besides  some  material  additions  in  the  new 
Formula  with  regard  to  the  secession  cause,  the  old  Formula  omitted 
several  things  that  are  specified  in  the  new  one.  Particularly,  the 
old  Formula  took  no  notice  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  as  received  by 
the  Assembly  in  1647,  but  only  as  ratified  by  law  in  1690  :  it  took 
no  notice  of  the  Larger  and  Shorter  Cathechisms ;  nor  of  the  proposi- 
tions concerning  church  government,  which  were  received  by  the  As- 
sembly in  1645 ;  nor  of  the  covenants  national  and  solemn  league  ; 
nor  of  the  covenanting  period  at  all.  It  took  no  notice  of  our  pres- 
byterial  worship,  government  and  discipline  as  sworn  to  in  the  cove- 
nants now  mentioned;  but  only  as  ''presently  authorized  and  prac- 
tised, and  now  so  happily  established." 

In  fine,  when  the  Associate  Presbytery  made  their  declinature,  in 
the  year  1739,  they  declared  themselves  mere  fully  and  plainly  with 
respect  to  the  judicatories  of  the  Established  Church,  than  they  had 
hitherto  done.  They  directlv  avowed  themselves  to  be  in  a  state  of 
secession  from  the  whole  organized  body  of  the  present  national 
church.  Accordingly,  about  this  time,  they  ceased  to  have  ministe- 
rial communion  with  any  ministers  of  the  Established  Church ;  and 
would  no  longer  admit  any  who  remained  in  the  communion  of  that 
church  to  hold  communion  with  them  in  sealing  ordinances.  Hence 
the  members  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  now  judged  it  incumbent  on 
them,  in  their  public  ministrations,  to  call  their  hearers  to  come  out 
of  that  corrupt  communion,  showing  them  the  sinfulness  and  danger 
of  continuing  in  it.  Ebenezer  Erskine,  for  example,  in  a  sermon  on 
Psalm  ii.  6,  has  these  words :  "  When  manifest  treasons  are  commit- 
ted against  the  King  of  Zion  ;  when  corruptions  either  in  principle  or 
practice,  are  allowed  and  not  purged  out  by  discipline ;  when  the  ma- 
jority of  a  church  and  of  her  judicatories  are  in  a  conspiracy;  the 
plain  command  in  that  case  is,  to  come  out  from  among  them  and  to 
be  separate,  not  to  touch  the  unclean  thing,  that  the  Lord  may  re- 
ceive us.  When  the  corrupt  party  are  few,  they  are  to  be  cast  out ; 
but  when  the  body  or  majority  of  the  church  becomes  wicked,  then 
the  sound  part  is  to  withdraw  from  her.'' 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  249 


DIALOGUE  II. 

The  secession  of  these  ministers  justifiable  on  other  grounds  than  their  violent 
extrusion— The  import  of  Scotland's  covenanted  reformation — Of  the  public 
resolutions  in  1650 — The  sin  of  ministers  in  accepting  of  the  indulgences  in 
the  reign  of  Charles  the  Second — The  sinfulness  of  the  addresses  of  thanks 
that  were  presented  to  James  the  Second  for  his  toleration — Omissions  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland  at  the  revolution  in  16S8— Evils  in  the  manner  in  which 
religion  was  then  settled  by  the  Parliament  of  Scotland — Taking  the  oath  of 
abjuration  a  national  sin — The  form  of  swearing,  by  kissing  a  book,  sinful — 
The  errors  of  Mr,  Simson  and  Mr.  Campbell,  with  the  opposite  truths  assert- 
ed and  maintained  by  the  Associate  Presbytery— Due  censure  of  error  in  the 
cases  of  Mr.  Simson  and  Mr.  Campbell  neglected  by  the  General  Assembly — 
An  expression  in  the  Judicial  Testimomy  concerning  the  prevalence  of  error 
vindicated— Two  articles  of  the  Associate  Presbytery's  acknowledgment  of 
sins,  vindicated :  one  with  regard  to  the  General  Assembly's  condemnation 
of  the  testimony  and  declinature  of  that  presbytery ;  the  other  with  regard 
to  Mr.  Whitefield's  ministrations  and  the  work  said  to  attend  them— Conclu- 
sion of  the  review  of  Mr.  Willison's  objections  against  the  Judicial  Testimo- 
ny of  the  Associate  Presbytery— Of  the  abuse  of  lots— Of  the  evil  of  the  Ma- 
son oath. 

The  last  conversation  led  Alexander  to  doubt  the  correctness  of 
the  account  which  Mr.  Willison  gives  of  the  Seceding  ministers  in  his 
Impartial  Testimony.  He  found,  that,  though  Mr.  Willison  says,  the 
majority  of  the  Assembly,  that  met  in  the  year  1734,  was  on  the  side 
of  peace  and  truth;  and  that,  though  they  removed  some  part  of  the 
grounds  of  the  secession,  particularly,  by  repealing  two  acts  ;  one 
that  had  been  passed  in  1780  against  the  recording  of  reasons  of  dis- 
sent, and  the  other,  the  act  passed  in  1732  about  the  method  of  plant- 
ing vacant  churches;  yet  the  principal  grounds  were  not  removed, 
but  rather  aggravated  by  that  Assembly.  He  was  surprised  to  learn 
from  Rufus,  that  the  judicatories  of  the  Established  Church,  and  not 
these  four  ministers,  were  receding  from  the  constitutional  principles 
of  the  Church  of  Scotland ;  and  that  the  former  might,  therefore,  be 
justly  accounted  the  separatists,  while  the  latter  were  doing  nothing 
but  what  the  ministers  of  that  church  were  bound  to  do  according  to 
her  acts  and  constitutions.  He  wondered  to  hear,  that  the  ministers 
who  belonged  to  what  Mr,  Willison  calls  the  faithful  body,  preferred 
the  communion  of  the  corrupt  party  to  that  of  these  ministers,  who 
were  neither  doing,  nor  proposing  to  do,  any  thing  but  what  the  faith- 
ful body  had  long  urged  the  judicatoreis  to  do ;  namely,  that  they 
should  judicially  approve  the  reformation  attauied  by  the  Church  of 


250  ALEXA.NDER  AND  RUFUS. 

Scotland  in  the  period  between  1638  and  1649  ;  and  that  they  should 
judicially  acknowledge  and  condemn  the  backslidings  of  the  church 
from  that  reformation.  Earnestly  desirous,  therefore,  of  more  infor- 
mation concerning  the  principles  of  the  secession,  Alexander  came, 
one  day,  to  Rufus'  house,  and  having  found  him  engaged  in  the  peru- 
sal of  Mr.  Wilson's  Defence  of  the  Reformation  Principles  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  began  a  conversation  with  him  in  the  following 
manner  : 

Alex,  I  have  usually  considered  the  subjects  in  dispute  between 
the  Established  Church  of  Scotland  and  the  Seceders  as  trifling,  and 
the  harsh,  acrimonious  manner  in  which  the  controversy  has  been  car- 
ried on,  as  disgusting. 

RuF.  Have  you  read  this  book,  which  I  have  in  my  hand  ? 

Alex.  I  have  sometimes  looked  into  it ;  but  the  opinion  I  enter- 
tained of  the  subject,  hindered  me  from  reading  it. 

RuF.  It  is  a  pity,  that  prejudice  has  so  long  debarred  you  from  the 
pleasure  of  seeing  a  firm  and  impartial  adherence  to  truth  and  evi- 
dence joined  with  a  conscientious  endeavor  to  do  justice  to  an  oppo- 
nent, as  eminently  exemplified,  as  I  have  ever  known  in  any  contro- 
versial writing.  Mr.  Wilson  had  good  reason  to  say,  with  Paul, 
"  I  speak  the  words  of  truth  and  soberness."  Considered  as  a  defence 
of  the  secession  cause,  his  work  is  unanswerable  ;  and  the  attempt  of 
his  opponent  to  answer  it,  could  neither  promote  the  peace  of  his  own 
mind,  nor  the  edification  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 

Alex.  Hereafter  I  mean  to  give  a  work,  you  recommend  so  highly, 
an  attentive  perusal :  at  present  I  wish  to  have  some  further  conver- 
sation on  the  grounds  of  the  secession,  which  you  entertained  me  with 
an  account  of,  at  our  last  enterview.  I  own,  with  Mr.  Willison,  that 
the  Assembly's  violent  extrusion  of  these  ministers  was  too  severe. 
You  have  endeavored  to  show,  that  obstinacy  in  a  course  of  defection 
from  a  pure  profession  of  religion  formerly  attained,  renders  it  war- 
rantable to  secede  from  a  particular  church,  even  when  she  holds  so 
much  of  the  christian  religion,  and  has  so  many  of  God's  people  in  her 
communion,  that  she  may  be  called,  in  a  large  sense,  a  true  church  of 
Christ.  But  an  advocate  for  what  is  termed  catholic  communion  as- 
serts, that,  "the  Seceders  missed  their  course,  when  they  rested  their 
vindication  upon  this  ground,  or  upon  any  other  than  their  violent 
extrusion."* 

RuF.  With  regard  to  the  actual  event  of  the  secession,  the  sentence 
of  the  Assembly's  commission  in  1*733,  suspending  these  ministers 
from  the  exercise  of  their  office,  was,  no  doubt,  the  immediate  occa- 
sion of  it ;  as,  by  this  sentence,  they  were  precluded  from  bearing  ne- 
cessary testimony  in  the  way  of  communion  with  the  Established 
Church.     It  as  also  allowed,  that  this  sentence  increased  the  grounds 

*  Plea  for  Catholic  Sacramental  Communion,  page  248,  note. 


ALEXANDER  AND   RUFUS.  251 

of  their  secession,  especially  considering  that,  in  1Y34,  this  sentence, 
though  upon  some  political  considerations,  the  Synod  of  Perth  and 
Sterling  was  then  impowered  to  loose  the  four  ministers  from  it,  was 
never  repealed  either  materially  or  formally ;  and  considering,  that 
these  ministers  pleaded  for  the  repeal  of  it,  not  merely  in  justice  to 
themselves,  but  to  injured  truth ;  and  in  order  to  prevent  such  a  sin- 
ful act  or  sentence  from  being  transmitted  to  future  generations  as  a 
standing  act  of  the  National  Church.  There  were,  however,  other  in- 
stances of  tyranny  in  the  administration  which  these  ministers  produced 
as  grounds  of  their  secession ;  such  as,  the  continued  practice  of  set- 
tling ministers  in  parishes  without  the  consent  of  the  people ;  their 
denouncing  the  highest  censure  of  the  church  against  ministers  who 
ventured  to  dispense  sealing  ordinances  to  such  of  the  people  as  con- 
scientiously declined  receiving  these  ordinances  from  intruders ; 
and  their  contemptuous  treatment  of  the  representations  and  petitions 
of  ministers  and  other  church  members  concerning  the  public  griev- 
ances. 

Another  ground,  on  which  these  ministers  vindicated  their  secession, 
was,  that  pernicious  errors,  brought  to  the  bar  of  the  Assembly,  either 
received  no  censure  at  all,  or  no  due  censure ;  and  that  the  truth  was 
not  judicially  asserted,  as  it  ought  to  have  been,  in  express  opposition 
to  the  terras  in  which  the  errors  had  been  taught.  The  false  doctrines, 
thus  connived  at,  were  such  as  affected  the  foundations  of  both  natural 
and  revealed  religion  ;  as  we  shall  see  when  we  come  to  consider  these 
errors.  The  Seceding  ministers  judged,  that,  in  order  to  warrant 
their  return  to  communion  with  the  judicatories  of  the  Established 
Church,  nothing  less  was  necessary,  than  a  particular  condemnation  of 
these  errors  and  a  particular  assertion  of  the  contrary  Divine  truths. 

Farther,  these  ministers  vindicated  their  secession  on  this  ground, 
that  they  could  not  discharge  the  duties  incumbent  on  them  as  minis- 
ters of  Christ,  v/hile  they  continued  in  communion  with  judicatories, 
that  were  obstinately  persisting  in  a  course  of  backsliding.  The  key  of 
discipline  and  government  as  well  as  that  of  doctrine  ought  to  be  ex- 
ercised by  Christ's  ministers.  But  when  themajority  in  the  judicator- 
ies of  a  particular  church  are  going  on  in  a  course  of  defection  and  refuse 
to  reform,  then  the  smaller  number  must  be  reduced  to  this  alternative; 
they  must  either  leave  the  majority  in  order  to  exercise  the  key  of  dis- 
cipline and  government  separately;  or,  continuing  in  communion  with 
them,  give  up  the  exercise  of  that  key  into  the  hands  of  those,  who 
are  manifestly  preverting  it  to  purposes  quite  contrary  to  the  end  for 
which  Christ  committed  it  to  his  ministers.  It  is  evident,  that,  in  the 
case  supposed,  the  smaller  number  ought  to  take  the  former  course, 
and  jointly  exercise  the  keys,  with  which  Christ  has  intrusted  them,  in 
displaying  a  banner  for  his  truth  and  ordinances  against  all  contrary 
errors  and  corruptions.  If  it  be  urged,  that  they  are  a  small  number, 
an  obscure  handful,  it  must  still  be  answered,  that  it  is  not  multitude, 


252  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS 

but  truth,  that  supports  a  religions  cause.  There  are  three  impor- 
tant duties  which  faithful  ministers  are  concerned  to  discharge.  First, 
they  ought  not  only  to  preach  the  truths  of  Christ  individually,  but 
also  to  assert  them  judically,  or  in  their  joint  capacity,  in  opposition 
to  any  errors  by  which  the  people  of  God  are  in  danger  of  being  se- 
duced. Seondly,  they  ought  not  only  to  preach  against  public  eyils 
individually ;  but  also  to  condemn  them  judicially,  or  in  their  united 
capacity ;  and  censure  such  as  are  openly  chargeable  with  them,  ac- 
cording to  the  holy  discipline  that  Christ  has  appointed  to  be  exercis- 
ed in  his  church.  Thirdly,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  ministers  of  the  word 
to  commit  the  ministerial  trust  to  faithful  men,  according  to  the  Divine 
command  delivered  by  the  apostle,  2  Tim.  ii.  2.  The  Seceding  min- 
isters show,  that  their  continuing  in  the  communion  of  ihe  Establish- 
ed Church,  as  it  is  represented  by  its  judicatories,  is  inconsistent  with 
the  faithful  discharge  of  the  duty  incumbent  on  them,  in  these  respects, 
as  ministers  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Alex.  Ministers  may  discharge  the  duty  of  bearing  testimony 
against  the  wrong  acts  and  decisions  of  judicatories  by  dissents  and 
protests,  without  leaving  the  communion  of  the  church. 

RuF.  These  ministers  answered  this  exception  j  first,  by  showing 
that  they  had  endeavored  to  maintain  a  testimoy  in  the  way  of  com- 
munion by  such  dissents  and  protests  ;  and  that  they  had  been  pre- 
cluded from  continuing  to  do  so  by  the  act  in  1730,  against  recording 
reasons  of  dissent  from  the  decisions  of  the  judicatories,  and  by  a  vio- 
lent extrusion  from  the  communion  of  the  church.  And,  secondly, 
they  answered  this  exception  by  giving  reasons  why  such  dissents  and 
protests  could  not,  in  the  present  case  between  them  and  the  judicato- 
ries of  the  Established  Church,  be  reckoned  a  sufficient  testimony  for 
truth,  nor  a  sufficient  discharge  of  the  duty  incumbent  on  them  as 
ministers  of  Christ.  One  of  these  reasons  is,  that  the  granting  of  such 
dissents  and  protests  to  be,  in  all  cases,  a  sufficient  discharge  of  the 
duty  of  ministers  with  regard  to  public  evils,  would  open  a  door  to  the 
most  corrupt  mixture  in  the  house  of  God.  At  this  rate,  under  the 
pretext  of  such  dissents  and  protests,  Arians,  Socinians,  Arminians 
and  Calvinists  may  be  conjoined  in  the  same  ecclesiastical  body ;  a 
combination  which  could  scarcely  be  accounted  a  church  confessing 
the  name  of  Christ.  Hence  in  any  particular  case,  the  supposition, 
that  such  dissents  and  protests  would  discharge  the  duty  of  a  minister 
with  regard  to  the  public  evils,  ought  not  to  be  admitted,  without  con- 
sidering the  nature  and  circumstances  of  these  evils.  A  second  reason 
is,  that,  while  the  supreme  judicatory  of  a  particular  church  justifies 
its  unrighteous  acts,  by  which  any  truth  of  God  lies  wounded  and 
bleeding  in  the  streets,  without  any  judicial  testimony  being  given  to 
it,  a  dissent  or  protest  in  the  records  of  the  judicatory  is  not  a  suffi- 
cient discharge  of  the  trust  committed  to  ministers  :  it  is  not  a  fulfill- 
ing of  their  ministry.     A  few  members  of  a  court  may  have  such  dis- 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  253 

sents  and  protests  recorded ;  and  yet  be  chargeable  with  tamely  sur- 
rendering the  key  of  discipline  and  government  into  the  hands  of  such 
as  are  suppressing  Divine  truth  and  supporting  error.  The  protest 
or  dissent  of  such  members  bears  no  proportion  to  the  injury  done  to 
truth  by  the  unrighteous  decisions  of  the  court ;  and  their  refusing  to 
make  a  public  and  judicial  acknowledgment  of  the  truth,  in  express 
opposition  to  error,  is  a  refusing  to  give  the  Redeemer  that  honor, 
which  belongs  to  him  before  a  wicked  and  perverse  generation,  Matth. 
xii.  32,  33;  Mark  viii.  38.  A  third  reason  which  they  gave  respect- 
ed the  case  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  at  that  time ;  namely,  that  dis- 
sents and  protests  in  the  records  of  the  judicatories  afforded  no  relief 
to  such  as  could  not  conscientiously  submit  to  the  ministry  of  intruders 
or  their  supporters  ;  unless  the  dissenters  or  protesters  would  also  pro- 
ceed to  act,  as  distinct  judicatories,  in  sending  to  the  aggrieved  such 
as  they  might  conscientiously  receive  as  sent  and  faithful  ministers  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

Thus,  though  the  extrusion  of  these  ministers  was  the  immediate 
occasion  of  the  secession  ;  yet  the  other  public  evils  already  mention- 
ed, in  a  connected  view,  and  as  aggravated  by  the  obstinacy  of  the 
judicatories  in  refusing  to  acknowledge  them  and  to  return  to  Scot- 
land's covenanted  reformation  :  nay,  all  the  public  evils  specified  in 
the  Judicial  Testimony  published  in  1737,  were  grounds  of  the  seces- 
sion, as  they  were  evils  belonging  to  the  course  of  defection  from  that 
reformation,  and  evils  against  which  a  consistent  and  faithful  testimo- 
ny could  not  be  maintained  in  a  way  of  communion  with  the  Estab- 
lished Church.* 

Alex.  Mr.  Willison's  opinion  of  the  Associate  Presbytery's  Judi- 
cial Testimony  is,  that,  though  there  are  many  good  things  in  it,  there 
are  also  many  mistakes  in  it,  and  misrepresentations  of  facts,  very 
harsh  and  unsuitable  expressions,  and  bitter  reflections  against  their 
brethren,  and  even  our  worthy  forefathers. f 

RuF.  Whatever  regard  is  due  to  Mr.  Willison's  anthority,  still  a 
greater  regard  is  due  to  truth.  Such  a  general  charge  against  the 
Judicial  Testimony  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  ought  not  to  be  ad- 
mitted without  inquiring  how  it  is  supported.  Has  Mr.  Willison 
pointed  out  these  mistakes,  misrepresentations,  harsh  and  unsuitable 
expressions  and  bitter  reflections  ? 

§  15.  Alex.  I  mean  to  propose  the  instances  he  gives  of  passages 
blamable  in  these  respects.  But,  in  the  first  place,  I  wish  to  hear  what 
you  mean  by  Scotland's  covenanted  reformation. 

RuF.  By  this  expression  is  meant  whatever  conformity  to  the  word 
of  God  was  attained  by  the  Church  of  Scotland  in  doctrine,  worship 
and  government.     There  were  two  remarkable  periods  of  this  reforma- 

*  Mr.  Wilson's  Defence  of  Ref.  Prine.,  pp.  143, 144.  And  Mr.  Gib's  Display,  pages 
45,46. 

t  Impart.  Test,  page  150. 


254  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

tion.  The  first  was  between  1560  and  1596  ;  a  period  full  of  memor- 
able events ;  such  as,  the  abolishing  of  the  Pope's  authority  in  Scot- 
land in  the  year  1560  ;  the  adoption  of  the  first  confession  of  faith ; 
the  planting  of  ministers  in  the  generality  of  parishes  through  the 
kingdom  ;  the  establishment  of  the  scriptural  government  of  the  church 
in  the  due  subordination  of  congregational  elderships  to  presbyteries, 
of  presbyteries  to  synods,  and  of  synods  to  a  General  Assembly  ;  the 
adoption  of  the  first  and  second  books  of  discipline  ;  the  swearing  and 
subscribing  of  the  national  covenant  by  persons  of  all  ranks  in  the 
years  1581  and  1590.  The  second  period  of  the  reformation  in  Scot- 
land was  between  1638  and  1650.  In  this  period,  sound  doctrine  was 
more  clearly  and  fully  stated  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  in  the  Lar- 
ger and  Shorter  Catechisms  compiled  by  the  Westminster  Assembly 
and  received  by  the  Church  of  Scotland,  in  opposition  not  only  to 
Popish,  but  to  Arminian  and  other  errors.  In  this  period,  the  purity 
of  Divine  worship  was  maintained  and  promoted  by  the  Assembly  at 
Glasgow  in  1638  declaring  the  five  articles  of  Perth  to  be  abjured  by 
the  national  covenant ;  and  still  more  in  the  year  1645,  by  the  church's 
receiving  the  directory  for  worship  agreed  on  by  the  Westminster 
Assembly.  The  Assembly  at  Glasgow  now  mentioned  asserted  the 
Divine  right  of  presbyterial  church  government  and  the  intrinsic  power 
of  the  church  to  meet  and  act  by  virtue  of  the  authority  granted  to 
her  by  Jesus  Christ  her  only  Head  ;  and  afterward  in  the  year  1646 
the  Assembly  received  the  form  of  church  government  agreed  on  by 
the  Westminster  Assembly,  in  which  the  scripture  waiTant  for  presby- 
terial courts,  and  their  gradual  subordination  are  more  particularly 
declared.  This  was  a  covenanting  period.  The  national  covenant 
was  renewed  in  1638  with  a  new  bond  against  prelatical  innovations. 
In  1643  the  solemn  league  and  covenant  was  entered  into  by  the  body 
of  the  people  of  Scotland  in  conjunction  with  their  neighbors  in  Eng- 
land and  Ireland  :  which  league  was  also  renewed  in  Scotland  in  1648, 
with  an  acknowledgment  of  sins  and  an  engagement  to  duties.  In 
this  period,  the  church  honestly  endeavored  to  attain  purity  of  church 
communion.  Episcopalians,  Independents,  Anabaptists  were  not  ad- 
mitted to  sacramental  communion,  till  they  had  acknowledged  the  sin- 
fulness of  their  errors  and  offensive  practice.  Many  acts  were  passed 
against  evils  that  are  commonly  overlooked  or  connived  at ;  such 
as,  the  public  exhibition  of  images  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  supersti- 
tious observation  of  days,  promiscuous  dancing,  contemptuous  or 
disaffected  speeches  concerning  the  cause  of  God  which  the  church 
and  land  had  engaged  by  solemn  covenant  to  maintain.  The  Lord's 
work,  in  this  period,  was  carried  on  with  deep  liumihation  and 
mourning.  It  has  been  often  and  justly  observed  concerning  Scot- 
land in  1638,  that  it  might  then  be  called  Bochim.  The  Parliament 
of  England  and  the  Westminster  Assembly  had  monthly  fasts.  Such 
are  the  particulars  that  characterize  Scotland's  covenanted  reforma- 
tion. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  255 

Alex.  Many  think  the  Associate  Presbytery  have  lavished  too  much 
praise  on  these  periods,  particularly  on  the  last  of  them  ;  when  these 
reformers  proposed  to  enjoin  submission  to  presbyterial  church  gov- 
ernment and  the  taking  of  the  solemn  league  under  civil  penalties. 
With  regard  to  persecution,  they  have  been  represented  as  no  less 
chargeable  with  it  than  Charles  the  First  or  Archbishop  Laud.  "  The 
Puritans  in  this  period,"  says  a  late  writer,  "  retaliated  upon  the  bish- 
ops and  clergy  all  the  ill  usage  and  intolerance  of  which  they  had  them- 
selves so  heavily  complained."* 

RuF.  The  Presbyterian  ministers,  in  this  period,  though  they  held 
the  intrinsic  power  of  the  church,  and  her  independence  on  the  state 
in  opposition  to  the  Erastian  opinion, f  were  solicitous  to  have  their 
judicial  deeds  ratified  by  the  civil  authority ;  and  when  these  were 
agreeable  to  the  mind  of  the  civil  magistrate,  he  was  ready  to  enact 
the  observance  of  them  under  civil  penalties.  But  from  the  Associate 
Presbytery's  adherence  to  the  covenanted  reformation  it  cannot  be  in- 
ferred, that  they  approved  the  compulsory  laws  made  in  its  favor. 
No  one  can  make  such  an  inference,  who  duly  considers  the  presby- 
tery's limitation  of  their  adherence  in  these  words  :  *'  Since  the  church, 
while  militant  is  in  an  imperfect  state,  it  is  not  intended  to  affirm,  that, 
in  the  above  mentioned  period,  there  was  nothing  defective  or  want- 
ing as  to  the  beauty  and  order  of  the  house  of  God,  or  that  there  was 
nothing  culpable  in  the  administration." 

The  assertion,  however,  which  you  mentioned,  of  a  late  writer  is  a 
palpable  falsehood.  When  the  Puritans  obtained  the  administration 
of  the  civil  government,  did  they  establish  any  such  courts  as  those  of 
the  Star  Chamber  and  High  Commission  ?  Did  they  fine,  imprison,  set 
in  the  pillory,  and  banish  any  for  speaking  or  writing  against  presby- 
tery or  the  solemn  league  ;  as  many  Puritans  were  used  for  speaking 
and  writing  against  prelacy,  superstitious  ceremonies,  and  stage-plays 
tending  to  the  corruption  of  morals  ?  The  parliament  appointed  a 
committee  to  receive  complaints  of  the  insufficiency  or  offences  of  the 
clergy  in  the  several  counties.  The  consequence  was,  that  many  were 
ejected  from  their  charges.  |  But  the  parliament  was  so  far  from  using 
severity,  that  they  ordered  the  ejected  ministers  (whatever  was  the 
cause  of  their  ejectment,)  to  receive  the  fifth  part  of  their  former  in- 
come. §  How  different  was  their  treatment  from  that  which  the  pres- 
byterian  ministers  met  with,  upon  the  restoration  of  Charles  the  Second, 
when  they  were  deprived  of  their  livings,  without  being  allowed  one 
farthing  ;  and  two  or  three  years  after,  were  banished  from  cities, 

*  Haweis'  Church  History,  page  272. 

+  The  administration  of  the  discipline  and  government  of  the  church,  according 
to  the  Erastiaus,  belongs  to  the  civil  magistrate. 

JLife  of  Baxter,  part  1st,  page  19. 

§  Pierce's  Vindication  of  the  Dissenters,  page  213. 


256  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

market  towns,  and  even  their  own  houses  ;  and  were  liable  to  severe 
fines  and  imprisonment  for  venturing  sometimes  to  exercise  their  min- 
istry !  I  shall  only  add  with  regard  to  these  acts  of  parliament  that 
enjoined  the  taking  of  the  solemn  league  and  submission  to  presbyte- 
rial  order  under  civil  penalties,  allowance  should  be  made  for  the  dif- 
ference between  their  circumstances  and  ours.  The  case  of  Scotland 
at  that  time,  as  one  observes,  was  somewhat  peculiar  in  this  respect, 
that  the  enemies  of  the  reformation  of  religion  in  that  kingdom,  were 
at  the  same  time,  enemies  to  its  civil  constitution  and  liberties.  And 
therefore  it  cannot  be  inferred  from  their  having  thought  it  necessary, 
in  such  peculiar  circumstances,  to  require  a  profession  of  adher- 
ence to  the  cause  of  the  reformation  in  which  they  were  then  engaged, 
under  civil  penalties,  that  they  would  have  thought  it  necessary  to  re- 
quire that  profession  under  civil  penalties,  in  our  present  circum- 
stances, when  people  of  different  and  opposite  religious  denominations 
agree  in  the  common  character  of  good  and  peaceable  members  of  the 
civil  state.* 

As  to  the  praises  which  the  Associate  Presbytery  have  bestowed  on 
this  period,  they  have  stated  the  grounds  of  it.  Their  commendations 
of  what  God  then  did  for  his  church,  are  confirmed  by  the  testimonies 
of  many  faithful  ministers  who  lived  in  that  time,  f 

*  Display  of  the  Secession  Testimony,  vol.  2nd,  page  333. 

t  See  Rutherford's  and  Bailie's  Letters,  Brown  of  Wamphray's  Apologetical  Re- 
lation, Many  Testimonies  in  Naphtali  and  the  Cloud  of  Witnesses.  The  notion, 
which  is  now  generally  entertained,  of  this  period,  is  derived  from  the  caricature 
of  it  in  Hume's  History  of  England.  How  different  is  his  account  of  the  Scots  re- 
formers and  of  the  members  of  the  loug  'Parliament  in  England  from  the  account 
given  of  them  by  Rapin,  whom  Hume  himself,  in  his  Political  Discourses,  calls 
the  most  judicious  of  historians  !  According  to  Mr.  Bailie  and  other  contempo- 
raries who  had  the  best  opportunities  of  being  acquainted  with  the  members  of 
that  parliament,  they  were  indeed  an  illustrious  band  of  pratriots.  But,  as  a 
valuable  writer  observes,  "  their  noble  sentiments,  their  wise  and  vigorous  pro- 
ceedings in  defending  the  cause  of  true  religion  and  civil  liberty,  are  seldom  to  be 
fully  or  fairly  learned  from  the  admired  pages  of  the  later  tribe  of  historiogra- 
phers ;  whose  partial  accounts,  distorted  pictures,  and  bad  reflections  and  insinu- 
ations exhibit  vile  libels,  instead  of  histories,  of  the  characters  and  transactions 
of  the  times  of  reformation."  One  instance  may  be  given,  as  it  relates  to  the  sub- 
ject here  treated  of  "The  controversy,"  says  Hume,  "between  the  parties," 
[to  wit,  between  Charles  the  First  and  the  long  parliament,]  "  was  almost  wholly 
theological,  and  that  of  the  most  frivolous  and  ridiculous  kind.  The  grievances, 
which  tended  chiefly  to  inflame  the  parliament  and  nation,  were  the  surplice,  the 
rails  placed  about  the  altar,  the  bows  exacted  on  approaching  it,  the  liturgy,  the 
breach  of  the  sabbath,  embroidered  copes,  lawn  sleeves,  the  use  of  the  ring  in 
marriage  and  of  the  cross  in  baptism."  Just  as  if  the  moral  evil  of  introducing 
such  things  into  the  worship  of  God  were  small ;  because  the  things  considered 
in  themselves  and  without  any  relations  to  that  worship,  are  trivial  or  indifferent ; 
or  as  if  there  were  little  or  no  evil  in  gross  idolatry ;  because,  as  the  apostle  says, 
an  idol  is  nothing  in  the  world.  Indeed  Hume's  apology  for  the  superstitions 
of  archbishop  Laud  might  serve  as  a  pretext  for  the  grossest  idolatry.  "Laud," 
says  he,  "  corrected  the  errors  of  the  first  reformers,  andpresented  to  the  affright- 
ened  and  astonished  mind  some  sensible  exterior  observances  which  might  oc- 
cupy it  during  its  religious  exercises  and  abate  the  violence  of  its  disappointed 
efiorts.    The  thought  no  longer  bent  on  that  Divine  and  mysterious  essence,  so 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  257 

Alex.  Presbyterian  divines  own,  that  the  magistrate  has  much 
power  circa  sacra,  but  no  power  in  sacris,  no  power  that  is  proper- 
ly or  formally  ecclesiastical,  his  power  being  only  civil. 

RuF.  The  members  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  avoided  loose  and 
ambiguous  expressions  in  declaring  their  principles.  One  of  them 
observes,  that  though  our  divines  own  that  the  magistrate  was  a  pow- 
er circa  sacra,  they  always  limit  or  qualify  this  power ;  otherwise,  I 
am  afraid,  adds  that  judicious  writer,  that  under  the  terms,  much  pow- 
er ci7^ca  sacra,  the  most  part  of  what  Erastians  plead  for  may  be  in- 
cluded ;  such  as,  the  subordination  of  church  courts  to  the  civil  mag- 
istrate, the  liberty  of  appeal  to  him  from  their  sentences,  and  the  de- 
livering up  to  his  disposal  the  whole  external  order  and  government 
of  the  church.*  But  it  has  always  been  uniformly  taught  by  the  min- 
isters belonging  to  the  communion  of  the  Associate  Presbytery,  that 
the  judicial  cognizance  of  doctrines,  of  Divine  worship,  of  the  disci- 
pline and  government  of  the  church,  as  revealed  in  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
and  the  judicial  censure  of  contrary  opinions  and  practices,  belong  ex- 
clusively to  the  church  of  Christ;  and  that  no  authoritative  judg- 
ment concerning  matters  of  religion  is  competent  to  civil  magistrates 
as  such. 

§  16.  Alex.  Before  I  bring  forward  Mr.  Wlllison's  objections 
against  the  Judicial  Testimony  of  the  Associate  Presbytery,  I  may  pro- 
pose one  or  two  that  have  been  offered  by  others ;  particularly  one 
with  regard  to  the'  public  resolutions,  as  they  were  called,  of  the  com- 
mission of  the  Assembly  in  1650.  Some  consider  it  as  a  doubtful  mat- 
ter how  far  the  commission  or  the  Assembly  was  chargeable  with  sin 
in  proposing  or  approving  these  resolutions. 

RuF.  These  resolutions  were  proposed  by  the  commission  in  answer 
to  two  insnaring  questions  put  to  them  by  the  king  and  parliament 
with  regard  to  those  who  discovered  disaffection  both  to  the  cause  of 
civil  liberty  and  to  the  covenanted  reformation.  First,  it  was  asked, 
whether  such  might  be  admitted  into  the  army  ?  and  the  commission 
granted,  that  in  a  case  of  great  and  evident  necessity,  all  fencible  per- 
sonsf  in  the  land  should  be  raised  and  permitted  to  fight  against 
Cromwell's  party ;  hoping,  however,  that  officers  of  known  integrity 
and  affection  to  the  cause  of  God  will  be  taken  special  notice  of. 

Some  time  afterward,  the  other  question  was  put  to  the  commission, 
whether,  or  not,  such  persons  might  be  admitted  to  be  members  of  the 
committee  of  estates  and  other  places  of  civil  trust,  on  satisfying  the 

Buperior  to  the  narrow  capacities  of  mankind,  was  able  by  means  of  the  model  of 
devotion  to  relax  itself  in  the  contemplation  of  pictures,  postures,  vestments, 
buildings."  That  a  professed  infidel  should  write  such  things,  is  no  wonder ;  but 
to  find  them  imbibed  and  often  repeated  by  professed  christians  and  protestants 
is  deplorable  indeed. 

*  Wilson's  Defence,  page  268,       t  Or  persons  able  to  bear  arms. 
It 


258  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS 

kirk  for  the  offence  for  which  they  were  excluded  ?  and  whether  the 
act  of  classes,  which  had  been  passed  only  about  a  year  before,  and  by 
which  some  were  excluded  for  life,  some  for  ten,  some  for  five  years, 
might  not  be  repealed  ?  and  the  commission  by  another  resolution 
gave  way  to  the  repeal. 

The  article  of  the  Judicial  Testimony  asserting  the  sinfulness  of 
these  resolutions  appears  highly  reasonable,  in  the  first  place,  because 
these  resolutions  were  contrary  to  the  acknowledgment  of  sins  and  en- 
gagement to  duties  with  which  they  had  a  little  before  accompanied 
the  renovation  of  the  solemn  league.  In  their  acknowledgment  of 
sins,  they  say,  "  To  this  day  we  have  not  made  it  our  study,  that  judi- 
catories and  armies  should  consist  of,  and  that  places  of  power  and 
trust  should  be  filled  with,  men  of  a  blameless  and  christian  conver- 
sation, of  known  integrity,  and  approven  fidelity,  affection  and  zeal 
unto  the  cause  of  God."  In  their  engagement  to  duties  they  say, 
"  We  shall,  according  to  our  places  and  callings,  endeavor  that  judi- 
catories and  all  places  of  power  and  trust,  both  in  kirk  and  state,  may 
consist  of,  and  be  filled  with  men  of  known  good  affection  to  the  cause 
of  God,  and  of  a  blameless  and  christian  conversation."  By  such  a 
solemn  confession  and  engagment,  the  sin  of  these  resolutions,  as  the 
Judicial  Testimony  says,  was  more  aggravated  than  it  would  other- 
wise have  been. 

In  the  next  place,  the  resolutions  corrupted  the  communion  of  the 
church  :  for,  as  the  Associate  Presbytery  say  in  their  acknowledgment 
of  sins,  "  these  enemies  to  a  covenanted  work  of  reformation  were  sud- 
denly received  into  full  church  communion  and  fellowship,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  act  of  Assembly  appointing  such  disaffected  persons  to  be 
censured."  With  regard  to  their  profession  of  satisfying  the  kirk, 
there  was  so  little  appearance  of  sincerity  in  it  from  their  known  prin- 
ciples and  habitual  conduct,  that  bishop  Burnet  in  his  history  calls  it 
a  mock  penitence  and  matter  of  great  scandal. 

In  the  third  place,  the  consequences  of  these  public  resolutions  were 
most  deplorable.  The  church  was  thereby  divided.  They  who  ad- 
hered to  these  resolutions  were  called  resolution ers.  A  considerable 
body,  on  the  other  hand,  of  ministers  and  elders  who  declared  against 
them,  were  called  protesters.  Great  numbers,  who  by  means  of  these 
resolutions  got  into  places  of  power  and  trust,  were  afterwards  abet- 
tors of  abjured  prelacy,  of  the  impious  acts  condemning  the  solemn 
league  and  covenant  as  treasonable,  and  of  a  bloody  persecution  of  all 
who  owned  that  sacred  engagment. 

§  17.  Alex.  Some  have  thought,  that  the  Presbyterian  ministers, 
who,  in  the  reign  of  Charles  the  Second,  accepted  his  indulgences,  are 
censured  too  severely  by  the  Associate  Presbytery.  Many  of  them 
were  godly  ministers. 

RuF.  The  Associate  Presbytery  testified  against  these  indulgences  ; 
because  they  flowed  fi'om  the  king's  supremacy  ;  by  which  he  assum- 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  259 

ed  that  government  of  the  church  which  the  Lord  Jesus  has  appoint- 
ed her  officers  only  to  administer.  As  this  supremacy  was  exercised 
in  granting  these  indulgences  ;  so  it  was  acknowledged  and  submitted 
to  in  acccepting  them.  By  virtue  of  an  authority  derived  from  this 
supremacy,  the  privy  council  assumed  the  actual  exercise  of  church 
power,  in  judging  of  the  gifts  and  qualifications  of  ministers  ;  in  plant- 
ing and  transplanting  them  at  their  pleasure  ;  in  framing  and  prescrib- 
ing canons  for  the  exercise  of  the  ministerial  office  ;  acts,  which  by 
virtue  of  Christ's  institution  are  competent  to  church  officers  only,  be- 
ing quite  beyond  the  sphere  of  the  civil  magistrate. 

The  Associate  Presbytery  also  condemns  these  indulgences  on  ac- 
count of  the  restrictions  to  which  ministers  were  thereby  subjected  in 
the  exercise  of  their  ministry.  By  these  indulgences,  they  were  for- 
bidden to  lecture  on  any  part  of  scripture  before  sermon ;  they  were 
prohibted  from  departing  out  of  the  bounds  of  the  parish  where  they 
resided,  without  being  permitted  by  the  bishop  of  the  doicese ;  from 
preaching  in  any  other  places  than  b'rks  ;  and  from  admitting  to  their 
communion  or  pulpit,  any  ministers  not  indulged  under  pain  of  being 
deposed  by  the  bishop  of  the  diocese.  And  while  they  were  strictly 
forbidden  in  these  indulgences  to  utter  any  seditions  expressions  in  the 
pulpit  or  elsewhere,  it  is  plain  from  the  acts  of  the  Parliament  and 
council  at  this  time,  that  faithful  ministerial  freedom  in  testifying 
against  the  perfidy  and  treachery  of  all  ranks  of  persons  in  the  viola- 
tion of  the  solemn  league,  was  forbidden  under  the  name  of  seditious 
expression. 

The  Judicial  Testimony  admits,  that  many  of  those,  who  were  in- 
snared  by  these  indulgences,  were  otherwise  eminent  lights.  But 
their  godliness  could  neither  justify  their  acceptance  of  such  indulgen- 
ces, nor  remove  the  guilt  in  which  the  land  was  thereby  involved.  A 
most  faithful  and  zealous  minister,  Mr.  M'Ward,  in  a  letter  subjoined 
to  his  ''  Earnest  Contendings,"  says  of  these  indulged  ministers  ;  "  All 
of  us  will  grant,  that  many  of  them  are  godly  men ;  but,  alas  !  their 
godliness,  as  it  has  been  pleaded,  is  more  prejudicial  to  the  work 
and  interest  of  Christ,  than  the  ungodliness  of  all  the  prelates  and 
curates. " 

Alex.  It  may  be  granted,  that  this  indulgence,  on  the  magistrate's 
part,  was  a  sinful  encroachment  upon  Christ's  heahship  over  his  church. 
But  as  to  worthy  ministers,  who,  as  Mr.  Willison  says,  always  refused, 
that  they  accepted  the  indulgences  upon  the  terms  of  the  king  and 
c  nmcil,  (though  they  preached  in  the  churches  assigned  them  by  these 
rulers,)  and  who  did  not  observe  these  terms ;  and  who,  on  that  ac- 
count, were  afterwards  turned  out ;  it  would  be  hard  to  charge  them 
with  approving  the  king's  usurped  supremacy.'^ 

RuF.  The  act  of  the  privy  council  concerning  the  indulgence  speci- 

*  Impartial  Test.,  page  47. 


260  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS- 

fied  the  terms  on  which  it  was  granted  ;  and  therefore  the  sin  of  min- 
isters in  accepting  the  indulgence  is  -not  disproved,  but  acknowledg- 
ed, when  it  is  said,  that  they  did  not  approve  nor  observe  the  terms 
on  which  it  was  offered.  For  it  is  plain,  that  they  ought  not  in  that 
case  to  have  accepted  it.  The  declaration  of  Alexander  Blair,  minis- 
ter at  Galston,  when  called  before  the  council,  was  highly  proper. 
Letting  the  copy  of  the  instructions,  which  they  had  given  him,  drop 
out  of  his  hand,  he  said,  "  that  he  could  receive  no  instructions  from 
them  to  regulate  him  in  the  exercise  of  his  ministry  ;  as,  in  doing  so, 
he  would  not  be  Christ's  ambassador,  but  theirs."* 

Alex.  Mr.  Willison  adds.  That  God  was  pleased  to  glorify  his 
sovereign  grace  in  giving  remarkable  success  to  the  ministry  of  those 
indulged  in  churches  as  well  as  to  that  of  those  who  preached  in  the 
fields  ;  between  whom  there  continued  much  love  and  peace  for  many 
years ;  until  some  began  to  condemn  the  indulged  so  far  as  to  preach 
separation  from  them  :  upon  which  followed  many  unwarrantable  di- 
visions, the  fruits  of  which  continue  to  this  day, 

RuF.  The  success  of  these  ministers  in  preaching  the  gospel  will 
not  prove  that  their  acceptance  of  the  indulgence  was  not  sinful.  For, 
as  Mr.  Willison  himself  intimates,  this  success  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the 
Divine  good  pleasure,  and  to  free  and  sovereign  grace.  The  rule,  by 
which  we  are  to  judge,  whether  any  practice  is  right  or  wrong,  is  not 
eventual  success,  but  the  word  of  God. 

This  compliance,  however,  with  the  persecutors  of  the  Lord's  wit- 
nesses, at  that  time,  tended  to  hinder,  and  not  to  promote  the  success 
of  the  gospel ;  particularly,  as  it  was  designed  to  suppress  the  preach- 
ing of  the  gospel  in  the  fields,  which  was  then  most  faithful  and  suc- 
cessful. Many  have  entertained  an  opinion  of  this  matter,  very  dif- 
ferent from  Mr.  Willison 's.  I  conld  name,  says  Patrick  Walker,  an 
honest  sufferer  for  truth  in  that  period,  some  of  those  indulged  minis- 
ters, who,  when  dying,  confessed,  that  from  the  time  in  which  they 
were  taken  in  that  snare,  it  was  never  with  them  as  it  was  formerly  ; 
and  who  doubted  whether,  after  that,  they  had  been  instrumental  in 
edifying  one  soul,  or  in  any  public  good.  He  adds,  that  many  people, 
who  had  heard  them,  avowed,  that  the  persecuted  gospel  in  the  fields, 
had  another  sort  of  relish  and  sweetness,  f 

It  is  very  unjust  to  reproach  those  who  bore  testimony  against  the 
acceptance  of  the  indulgences,  such  as,  Messrs.  Brown,  M'Ward,  Car- 
gil  and  Cameron,  as  causing  mournful  divisions  among  the  professed 
friends  of  the  covenanted  reformation.  But  a  principal  cause  of  these 
divisions,  both  in  the  intention  of  the  enemies  of  reformation,  and,  in 
fact,  was  the  acceptance  of  the  indulgences  :  the  bitter  fruit  of  which 

*  Crookshank's  History,  part  1.,  chap.  9. 

t  Remarkable  Passages  of  the  Lives  of  Messrs.  Peden,  Semple,  Cameron  &c., 
page  218. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  261 

acceptance  was,  the  defection  continued,  to  this  day,  from  the  reforma- 
tion which  had  been  attained.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was,  in  a  great 
measure,  by  means  of  these  faithful  ministers  and  people,  who  contend- 
ed earnestly  against  the  acceptance  of  the  indulgences,  that  the  ordi- 
nances of  the  gospel  have  been  transmitted  to  us  in  purity. 

On  the  whole,  it  cannot  well  be  denied,  that  the  acceptance  of  the 
indulgences,  at  that  time,  whether  considered  in  itself  or  in  its  conse- 
quences, is  justly  represented  as  a  ground  of  humiliation,  and,  while 
the  evil  of  it  is  not  duly  acknowledged  and  lamented,  of  God's  con- 
troversy with  his  people. 

Alex.  I  shall  now  propose  the  instances  by  which  Mr.  Willison 
endeavors  to  support  his  charge  against  the  Judicial  Testimony  of  the 
Associate  Presbytery. 

§  |18.  The  first,  I  take  notice  of,  is  their  condemning  all  the  old 
persecuted  Presbyterian  ministers,  who  accepted  of  the  liberty  of 
preaching  under  James'  toleration,  as  involving  the  land  in  heinous 
guilt ;  which  he  says,  is  a  most  rash  and  uncharitable  censure  of  those 
worthies,  who  were  honored  to  be  great  sufferers  for  truth ;  men  of 
eminent  piety  and  tenderness,  who  were  signally  owned  of  God  dur- 
ing that  liberty ;  and  who  never  saw  cause  to  repent  of  it  to  their 
dying  hour.* 

RuF.  The  memory  of  several  of  these  ministers  is  indeed  precious 
and  savoury.  So  is  the  memory  of  many  other  christians,  in  whose 
conduct  some  things  may  be  justly  blamed. 

There  have  been  many  ministers  in  the  Episcopal  and  Independent 
communions,  who  have  shown  piety  and  tenderness  of  conscience, 
whom  God  has  made  instrumental  in  winning  souls,  and  who  never 
saw  cause  to  repent  of  their  errors  in  relation  to  church  government. 
Some  of  the  saints  practiced  polygamy  for  which  we  do  not  read  that 
they  ever  exercised  any  particular  repentance.  Whatever  any  of  the 
saints  have  attained,  and  however  useful  they  were  through  the  sove- 
reign grace  of  God,  it  is  warrantable  to  compare  their  conduct  in  the 
house  of  God  with  his  word,  and  to  disapprove  any  part  of  it  which 
we  find  to  be  not  according  to  that  Supreme  rule.  Hence,  it  is  evi- 
dent, that  however  just  the  character  be,  which  Mr.  Willison  gives  of 
these  old  persecuted  ministers,  it  ought  not  to  hinder  us  from  attend- 
ing to  the  reasons  why  their  acceptance  of  King  James'  toleration 
with  addresses  of  thanks,  was  acknowledged  by  the  Associate  Presby- 
tery to  be  a  public  evil.     These  reasons  are  chiefly  two. 

The  first  is,  that  this  toleration  proceeded,  as  Mr.  Willison  himself 
observes,  from  a  vile  spring,  namely,  the  king's  absolute  dispensing 
power.  If  the  parliament  had  abrogated  their  own  penal  statutes 
against  the  genuine  members  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  it  would  have 
been  a  mercy  to  be  gratefully  acknowledged.     But  that  which  these 

*  Imp.  Test.,  page  222. 


262  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

ministers  accepted,  and  for  which  they  gave  addresses  of  thanks,  was 
a  very  different  thing  :  it  was  the  king's  proclamation,  in  which  he 
claimed  and  exercised  an  absolute  power  of  suspending  and  disabling 
all  the  laws  against  the  papists.  No  sincere  protestant  or  lover  of 
civil  liberty,  ought  to  reckon  the  Associate  Presbytery  rash  or  unchari- 
table for  their  disapprobation  of  the  countenance  given  by  these  min- 
isters to  what  came  from  such  an  execrable  fountain,  and  tended,  as 
the  historian  Rapin  tells  us,  to  establish  the  popish,  upon  the  ruins  of 
the  protestant  religion. 

The  second  reason  why  this  toleration  ought  not  to  have  been  ac- 
cepted, (much  less  praised,  in  an  address  of  thanks,  as  a  gracious 
and  surpising  favor,)  is,  that  it  was  granted  upon  this  express  con- 
dition, that  "they  were  not  to  teach  what  might  anywise  tend  to  alien- 
ate the  heart  of  the  people  from  the  king  or  his  government ;"  that 
is,  they  were  not  to  preach  against  popery  or  arbitrary  power.  Mr, 
Willison,  in  his  Testimony,  grants,  that  if  this  was  the  meaning  of  the 
words  now  mentioned,  (and  that  it  was  so,  no  one  acquainted  with 
the  history  of  James'  reign  can  doubt,)  it  was  sinful  in  any  man  to 
comply  with  this  condition.  "Ah  !"  says  he,  speaking  of  this  very 
matter,  "  we  and  our  fathers  have  sinned,  and  we  have  cause  to  be 
deeply  humbled,  both  for  their  sins  and  our  own.  "*  Thus,  if  it  was 
rash  and  uncharitable  to  acknowledge  the  sinfulness  of  the  conduct  of 
these  ministers,  Mr.  Willison  himself  is  blameable  as  well  as  the  As- 
sociate Presbytery;  for  he  makes  the  same  acknowledgment.  We 
have  here  only  to  lament  his  inconsistency,  and  the  prejudice  he  dis- 
covers against  the  Associate  Presbytery. 

§  19.  Alex.  Mr.  WilHson  says,  the  Associate  Presbytery,  in  their 
Act  and  Testimony,  have  cast  slanders  on  their  worthy  ancestors  and 
their  mother  church.  One  of  these  slanders  is,  Their  alleging  that 
the  Assembly  in  1690,  which  consisted  of  many  confessors  and  old 
sufferers,  made  no  particular  acknowledgment  of  the  backslidings  of 
the  land  under  prelacy,  f 

RuF.  I  shall  read  the  whole  passage,  as  it  stands  ^in  their  Declara- 
tion and  Testimony.  "It  was  the  laudable  practice,  in  reforming 
times,  to  condemn  all  steps  of  defection ;  and  duly  to  censure  such  as 
were  guilty  of  puclic  backsliding.  Accordingly,  by  the  Assembly 
that  met  in  the  year  1638 — All  the  prelates,  being  ringleaders  in  the 
apostacy,  were  deposed  ;  and  some  of  them  excommunicated.  Also, 
in  the  said  reforming  period,  they  returned  to  the  Lord,  by  a  particu- 
lar acknowledgment  and  confession  of  the  sins  of  the  ministry,  and  of 
the  whole  land ;  and  by  renewing  their  solemn  covenant  engage- 
ments. But  the  General  Assembly,  that  met  in  the  year  1690,  made 
no  particular  acknowledgment  of  the  many  heinous  backslidings  of 
the  former  period.      But,   on  the  contrary,  when  many  lamentable 


*  Imp.  Test,  pages  50,  51.  f  Ibid.,  page  169. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  263 

steps  of  defection  and  apostacy  were  complained  of  in  a  large  paper 
offered  to  the  aforesaid  Assembly  in  1690,  by  Mr.  Alexander  Shields 
and  other  two  ministers,  the  said  Assembly  was  so  far  from  attempt- 
ing the  redress  of  their  grievances,  that  they  approved  the  report  of 
their  committee  of  overtures,  calling  the  contents  of  that  paper, 
'^  unreasonable  and  impracticable  proposals,  uncharitable  and  injurious 
reflections,  tending  rather  to  kindle  contentions  than  to  compose  di- 
visions." 

The  Associate  Presbytery  is  here  comparing  the  conduct  of  the  As- 
sembly in  1638  with  that  of  the  Assembly  in  1690.  The  former 
acting  as  men  resolved  upon  a  thorough  reformation ;  the  latter,  as 
men  afraid  of  proceeding  further  than  they  could,  consistently  with 
their  interest  or  their  ease.  The  former  were  explicit  and  particular 
in  confessing  the  defections  that  had  taken  place  in  the  preceding 
period,  that  is,  from  1596  to  the  year  1638,  as  breaches  of  their  cov- 
enant with  God  ;  but  the  latter  neglected  to  make  any  such  particu- 
lar confession  of  the  manifold  instances  of  Scotland's  apostacy  and  per- 
fidy in  the  reign  of  Charles  the  Second  and  his  brother. 

Alex.  Mr.  Willison  tells  us,  that  the  General  Assembly  which 
met  in  October  1690,  (about  two  years  after  the  revolution)  appoint- 
ed a  national  fast ;  in  the  causes  of  which  they  enumerated  a  great 
many  sins  of  the  laud  both  in  the  former  and  present  times :  and 
among  other  sins  of  the  preceding  period,  the  introducing  of  prelacy, 
the  imposing  and  taking  of  unlawful  oaths,  the  shedding  of  innocent 
blood,  the  general  fainting  under  the  late  persecutions.* 

RuF.  Though,  in  these  causes  of  a  fast,  the  introduction  of  prelacy 
is  acknowledged  as  a  sin  ;  yet  it  is  not  declared  to  be  contrary  to  their 
national  oath  and  Confessions  of  Faith.  Again,  it  is  mentioned  in 
these  causes  of  a  fast,  that  much  innocent  blood  had  been  shed  ;  but  it 
is  not  said  to  be  the  innocent  blood  of  the  witnesses  of  Jesus  ;  blood, 
that  was  shed  for  the  testimony  which  they  held.  These  causes  make 
no  mention  of  some  of  the  most  notorious  evils  of  the  period  between 
1650  and  1688  ;  such  as,  the  public  resolutions  ;  the  breaking,  burn- 
ing and  burying  of  the  solemn  covenants,  which  the  nation  had  sworn; 
the  sin  of  ministers  in  accepting  of  indulgences.  Nor,  in  these  causes 
of  a  fast,  was  there  any  approbation  given  of  testimonies  and  suffer- 
ings of  a  faithful  remnant  in  that  trying  period  for  a  covenanted  re- 
formation. Nay,  the  following  remark  inserted  in  this  paper  is  too 
much  in  the  style  of  the  enemies  of  these  witnesses  :  "  some  managed 
their  zeal  with  too  little  discretion  and  meekness."  But  it  is  not  said 
who  were  liable  to  this  charge.  In  short,  it  is  evident,  that  these 
causes  of  a  fast  were,  by  no  means,  such  a  particular  acknowledgment 
of  the  many  heinous  backslidings  of  the  former  period,  as  accord- 
ed with  the  example  of  that  faithful  reforming  Assembly  at  Glasgow. 

*  Imp.  Test;,  page  58. 


264  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

Even  Mr.  Willison  expresses  a  wish,  that  these  causes  had  been  more 
full*  > 

Alex.  Mr.  Willison  says,  that  when  Messrs.  Linning,  Shields  and 
Boyd  were  received  into  fellowship  with  the  Church  of  Scotland  and 
her  judicatories  after  the  revolution,  these  micisters  gave  in  a  long 
paper  for  the  exoneration  of  their  consciences,  bearing  testimony 
to  what  they  judged  right,  and  against  what  they  believed  to  be 
wrong,  f 

KuF.  Mr.  Willison,  when  he  professed  to  give  a  fair  and  impartial 
testimony  against  the  sins  of  the  church  at  that  time,  ought  not  to 
have  passed  over  this  paper,  and  the  treatment  it  met  with,  so  slight- 
ly. The  particulars  stated  in  it  were  of  such  importance,  *'  that,  if 
they  should  be  neglected,"  said  these  three  honest  ministers,  "  the  rev- 
olution settlement  will  be  death  to  us,  instead  of  a  reviving." 

"  1st,  It  was  proposed,  that  the  Assembly  should  enquire  into  the 
rarious  degrees  of  compliance  with  the  introduction  of  abjured  prelacy 
in  the  preceding  reigns  ;  particularly,  by  hearing,  or,  in  otherwise 
owning,  the  Episcopal  ministers. " 

*'  2d,  That  they  should  enquire  into  the  scandalous  violation  of 
the  covenants,  national  and  solemn  league,  in  the  preceding  riegns ; 
particularly  by  subscribing  or  swearing  tests  or  bonds  contrary  to  the 
covenanted  reformation." 

"  3rd,  That  they  should  consider  the  encroachments  that  had  been 
made  by  the  civil  magistrate  upon  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  gos- 
pel church  ;  and  how  far  any  ministers  had  submitted  to,  or  approved, 
these  enchroachments  by  their  acceptance  of  what  was  called  the  in- 
dulgences  ;  or  by  their  censuring  the  faithful  for  discovering  the  sin- 
fulness of  it. " 

"4th,  That  they  should  review  the  conduct  of  those  ministers  who 
had  sent  addresses  of  thanks  to  James  the  Second  for  his  toleration, 
in  which  he  avowed  the  exercise  of  despotic  power  in  dispensing  with 
the  laws  of  the  nation  ;  and  suspending  the  liberty  of  preaching  the 
gospel  upon  this  condition,  that  ministers  should  say  nothing  that 
would  have  any  tendency  to  alienate  the  minds  of  the  people  from  a 
popish  and  tyrannical  government." 

"5th,  That  they  should  take  into  consideration  the  sinfulness  of 
neglecting  the  renovation  of  the  buried  national  covenants,  and  the 
assertion  of  the  obligation  of  them  :  and  that  the  national  covenant 
and  solemn  league  should  be  renewed  in  an  accommodation  of  them 
to  the  present  time,  with  a  solemn  acknowledgment  of  the  public 
branches  of  these  covenants." 

"  6th.  That  they  should  testify  against  the  silence  of  many,  or  their 
ambiguous  way  of  speaking,  about  the  wickedness  of  the  persecuting 
laws  ;  by  which  so  many,  great  and  small,  were  involved  in  the  guilt 
of  persecution  ;  and  the  land  was  defiled  with  blood." 

*  Imp.  Test.,  pages  58,  59.  t  Ibid.,  page  57. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  265 

"  Lastly,  That  inquiry  should  be  made  into  a  prevailing  report, 
that  some  were  admitted  to  sealing  ordinances  in  this  church,  who  had 
sworn  the  test,*  and  persecuted  the  pious  confessors  of  the  truth  in 
various  ways  ;  and  that  others,  who  had  habitually  complied  with  pre- 
lacy, were  admitted  to  the  office  of  ruling  elders,  and  even  to  the  min- 
istry, without  being  required  to  make  any  public  acknowledgment  of 
their  offences." 

Though  the  committee  of  overtures  allowed,  that  there  were  several 
good  things  in  this  paper  ;  yet  the  particulars  stated  in  it  as  necessary 
to  the  redressing  of  grievances ;  such  as,  the  express  condemning  of 
national  steps  of  defection  in  the  preceding  period,  the  renewing  of 
the  covenants,  the  asserting  of  the  rights  and  privileges  of  Christ's 
spiritual  kingdom  ;  were,  in  general,  represented  by  the  committee  in 
their  report,  and  considered  by  the  Assembly,  as  unreasonable  and  im- 
practicable proposals.  This  was  an  evil  much  to  be  lamented  ;  of 
which  Mr.  Willison  makes  no  acknowledgment. 

Alex.  Mr.  Willison  tells  us,  that,  in  this  Assembly,  there  was  a 
great  gathering  of  old,  banished,  suffering  ministers,  who  had  survived 
the  long  storm  of  persecution.  These  ministers  had  several  general 
meetings  before  this.  In  one  of  these  meetings  they  agreed,  that  the 
first  day  of  the  Assembly's  meeting  should  be  kept  as  a  day  of  solemn 
fasting  and  humiliation ;  which  was  observed  accordingly.  This 
church  having  been  long  overwhelmed  with  ruin,  the  Assembly  had 
now  much  work  to  do,  to  remove  some  of  the  rubbish,  and  establish 
some  order.  They  had  multitudes  of  curates  still  remaining  in  the 
churches  to  deal  with  ;  they  had  civil  rulers  urging  a  coalition  with, 
or  comprehension  of,  many  of  them ;  they  had  rents  among  them- 
selves to  heal ;  and  many  other  difficulties  to  grapple  with.  Amidst 
all  these,  they  did  a  great  many  good  things  ;  such  as,  appointing 
all  ministers,  elders  and  probationers  to  'subscribe  the  Confession  of 
Faith ;  and  making  acts  for  keeping  the  Lord's  day  ;  for  erecting 
schools  in  the  Highlands,  and  providing  them  with  Bibles  in  the  Erse 
language,  f 

*  The  Test  was  framed  by  the  parliament,  August  31st,  1681.  At  first,  only 
persons  in  public  ofiice,  civil,  military  and  ecclesiastical,  were  obliged  to  take  it. 
But  afterwards  it  was  imposed  on  persons  of  all  ranks  as  a  test  of  loyalty  ;  and  the 
refusal  of  it  was  made  a  pretence  for  persecuting  great  numbers  to  death.  This 
oath,  as  Hume  justly  allows,  was  a  medley  of  contradiction  and  absurdity.  In  the 
first  part  of  it,  the  protestant  religion  contained  in  the  Firzt  Confession  of  Faith  is 
professed,  and  all  principles  and  doctrines  inconsistent  with  it.  are  renounced. 
And  yet  in  the  following  part  of  this  oath  the  king's  supremacy  in  its  utmost 
extent,  is  asserted,  again  and  again ;  and  also  the  unlawfulness  of  resisting  the 
king,  on  any  pretext  whatsoever  ;  the  obligation  of  the  covenants,  national  and 
solemn  league,  is  disowned,  and  the  government  of  the  church,  then  established 
by  law%  is  approved.  How  great  was  the  guilt  of  the  General  Assembly  at  the 
revolution,  in  passing  over  the  atrocious  public  evil  of  taking  this  abominable 
oath,  without  inquiry,  and  without  any  particular  acknowledgment ! 

t  Imp.  Test.,  page  57. 


266  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

KuF.  Such  good  tilings  as  these  ought,  indeed,  to  be  commemor- 
ated with  approbation  and  thankfulness.  But  they  will  not  prove, 
that  it  was  not  the  duty  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  to  acknowledge, 
as  they  have  done,  the  defects  and  the  unfaithfulness  of  the  Assembly 
at  that  lime.  Mr.  Willison  himself  says  :  ''  We  wish  they  had  done 
more  to  retrieve  the  honor  of  these  broken  and  burnt  covenants  by 
openly  asserting  the  lawfulness  and  obligation  of  them,  and  applying 
to  the  civil  powers  for  their  concurrence  to  the  renovation  of  them." 
But  Mr.  Willison  ought  not  to  have  represented  the  concurrence  of 
civil  rulers  as  necessary  to  the  church's  renovation  of  her  solemn  cov- 
enant engagements.  The  Assembly's  omission  of  plain  duty,  on  ac- 
count of  the  apprehensions  they  were  under  of  meeting  with  strenuous 
opposition  from  great  men  in  power,  is  not  to  be  justified. 

Many  other  honest  ministers  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  as  well  as 
the  Associate  Presbytery  have  acknowledged  and  lamented  the  un- 
faithfulness of  the  proceedings  of  this  church  at  the  revolution. 

Mr.  Hog,  minister  at  Carnock,  in  the  account  of  his  life  written  by 
himself,*  complains;  "That  after  the  happy  revolution,  under  the 
specious  names  of  prudence  and  just  moderation,  the  testimony  of 
former  times  was  suppressed  ;  and  it  was  not  thought  a  proper  sea- 
son to  intermeddle  with  our  covenants  or  with  defections  from  them ; 
that  we  might  not  give  the  least  umbrage  to  those  that  were  in  the 
government  ;  many  of  whom  were  not  of  our  principles,  and  some 
had  been  leaders  in  the  former  persecution." 

Mr.  Dickson,  another  minister  of  the  church  of  Scotland,  in  a  let- 
ter to  a  friend,  a  little  before  his  death,  which  took  place  in  the  year 
1700,  expresses  himself  in  a  very  pathetic  manner  concerning  the  set- 
tlement and  state  of  that  church  after  the  revolution.  ''  It  is  many 
years''  says  he^  "since  the  sun  fell  low  upon  Scotland.  Many  a  dis- 
mal day  hath  it  seen  since  1649.  At  that  time,  our  reformation 
mounted  towards  it  zenith ;  but  since  we  left  building  on  that  excel- 
lent foundation  laid  by  our  honored  forefathers,  we  have  still  moved 
from  ill  to  worse  ;  and  are  likely  to  do  so  still  more,  until  we  slide 
ourselves  out  of  sight  and  sense  of  a  reformation.  We  have  been 
lately  favored  with  a  wonderful  deliverance  from  the  slavery  of  a  heav- 
en-daring enemy  ;  hnijiotone  line  of  reformation  is  pencilled  upon 
our  deliverance.  It  is  a  long  time  since  our  solemn  covenant  engage- 
ments looked  pale.  Let  us  never  dream  of  a  reviving  Spirit  among 
us,  till  there  be  a  reviving  respect  for  the  solemn  vows  of  God.  If 
there  was  but  a  little  appearance  of  that  Spirit  which  actuated  our 
worthy  forefathers  in  our  public  assemblies  and  preachings,  you  would 
see  a  wonderful  alteration  in  the  face  of  our  affairs  :  the  fields  I  as- 
sure you,  would  look  white,  near  to  harvest." 

Among  the  ministers  and  elders  who  composed  the  General  Assem- 

*  Quoted  in  Mr.  Wilson's  Defence  of  the  Reformation  principles,  page  260. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  2G7 

bly  in  1690,  there  was  no  doubt,  a  number  who  had  suffered  for  the 
truth.  But  it  seems  too  evident,  that  the  generality  of  them  had  com- 
plied, more  or  less,  with  the  public  evils  of  the  preceding  period. 

Alex.  Perhaps  the  evils  you  mean,  are  alluded  to  in  the  causes  of 
a  fast,  which  were  mentioned  a  iittle  while  ago,  in  which  the  General 
Assembly  acknowledged,  that  there  had  been  much  fainting^  under 
the  late  persecutions,  even  of  eminent  ministers,  by  either  yielding  to 
the  defections  and  evils  of  the  time,  or  not  giving  seasonable  and  nec- 
essary testimonies  against  them. 

RuF.  Such  public  evils  ought  to  have  been  specified  ;  and  the  share, 
that  ministers  had  in  them,  openly  and  particularly  acknowledged  to 
the  glory  of  God.  The  truth  is,  when  we  consider  how  much  the 
greater  part  of  the  members  of  this  assembly  had  complied  with  the 
public  evils  of  the  preceding  reigns ;  when  we  recollect  the  distance 
and  reserve,  which  had  been  visible  in  the  conduct  of  most  of  them 
towards  Mr.  Renwick,  and  others,  who  had  suffered  for  the  truth  ; 
and  their  treatment  of  the  paper  offered  by  Mr.  Shields  and  two  oth- 
er ministers,  we  have  scarcely  any  reason  to  consider  this  Assembly  as 
well  affected  to  the  revival  of  the  covenanted  reformation.  I  have  no 
doubt,  that  Mr.  Ebenezer  Erskine  had  sufficient  ground  to  assert  in 
a  printed  sermon  from  Amos  ix.  11,  that  "when  the  Lord  turned 
back  the  captivity  of  this  church  at  the  revolution,  there  was  no  due 
inquiry  after  the  shedding  of  blood.  Nay"  said  he,  '-'instead  of  that 
men  who  had  dipt  their  hands  in  the  blood  of  the  saints,  were  admit- 
ted to  sit  as  constituent  members,  in  the  supreme  judicatories  of  this 
church." 

Alex.  Another  instance  of  slander,  with  which  Mr.  Willison  charges 
the  Associate  Presbytery,  is  their  asserting,  that  the  Assembly  in 
1690,  declared,  that  the  perfidious  prelates  were  not  to  be  deposed 
for  their  treacherous  defection.*  I  suppose  he  knew,  that  no  such 
thing  was  ever  declared  by  that  Assembly. 

RuF.  In  order  to  vindicate  the  passage  of  the  Associate  Presby- 
tery's Testimony,  which  Mr.  Willison  refers  to,  from  the  charge  of 
slander,  I  shall  read  it,  and  add  a  remark  or  two  on  some  of  the  terms 
used  by  the  Presbytery. 

''Neither  have  such  as  made  defection  been  duly  censured ;  but  on 
the  contrary^  the  index  of  uuprinted  acts  of  Assembly,  bears  a  public 
declaration  by  the  moderator.  That  the  Assembly  would  depose  no  in- 
cumbents, simply  for  their  judgment  anent  the  government  of  the 
church ;  that  is,  they  declare,  that  the  perfidious  prelates  and  their 
underlings  were  not  to  be  deposed  for  their  treacherous  defection 
from  the  covenanted  principles  of  this  church.  And,  in  consistency 
with  this  declaration,  the  Assembly  in  1696,  enjoin  their  commission, 
(as  several  assemblies  afterwards  did,)  to  receive  into  ministerial  com- 

*  Imp.  Test,  page  169. 


268  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

munion  such  of  the  late  conforming  ministers,  as,  having  qualified 
themselves  according  to  law,  shall  subscribe  the  Formula,  which  was 
then  framed  for  them  :  whereby  they  were  not  bound  to  acknowledge 
that  Presbyterian  government  is  founded  in  the  word  of  God  ;  but 
only  that  the  church  government,  as  now  settled  by  law,  is  the  only 
government  of  this  church. — Upon  signing  the  above  Formula,  a 
great  many  perlatical  ministers  and  elders  were  admitted  into  the  body 
of  the  church,  and  had  access  to  sit  in  judicatories,  without  being 
required  to  give  any  evidence  of  their  repentance  or  sorrow  for  their 
heinous  and  scandalous  defection." 

The  proposition^  which  Mr.  Willison  calls  a  slander,  is  a  necessary 
consequence  of  the  facts  here  related  :  if  the  latter  be  true,  the  former 
can  be  no  slander.  By  the  prefidious  prelates  the  Associate  Pres- 
bytery meant  such  as  had  once  professed  the  covenanted  Presbyterian 
principles,  and  were  guilty  of  a  treacherous  defection  from  them. 
Such  were  the  incumbents  or  ministers  of  parishes,  who,  in  the  pre- 
ceding reigns,  had  conformed  to  episcopacy.  If  they  were  not  to  be  cen- 
sured for  their  judgment  concerning  episcopacy,  neither  were  they  to 
be  censured  for  their  practice  according  to  that  judgment,  in  the  pre- 
ceding period. 

The  injunction  of  the  Assembly's  commission  to  receive  ministers, 
who  had  thus  conformed,  into  ministerial  communion,  upon  their  sub- 
scribing thb  Formula  which  was  then  framed  for  them,  puts  the  mat- 
ter out  of  doubt.  For  if  these  incumbents,  who  had  evidently  made 
treacherous  defection  from  the  covenanted  principles  of  the  church  of 
Scotland,  were  to  be  received  into  communion  upon  their  subscription 
of  a  Formula,  which  contained  no  proper  acknowledgment  of  these 
principles  ;  it  must  follow,  that  they  were  not  to  be  deposed,  nor  in- 
deed censured  at  all,  for  their  defection,  which  is  justly  called  treach- 
erous, as  having  been  a  deliberate  violation  of  the  engagements  which 
they  had  entered  into,  before  the  introduction  of  episcopacy,  to  main- 
tain Presbyterian  principles.  That  the  moderator's  declaration  be- 
fore mentioned,  was  the  mind  of  the  majority  of  that  Assembly,  ap- 
pears, from  its  being  recorded  in  the  Assembly's  books,  and  referred 
to  in  the  index  of  their  unprinted  acts ;  while  it  accords  with  their 
conduct  afterwards  in  receiving  those  who  had  comformed  to  episco- 
pacy without  requiring  any  acknowledgment  of  the  evil  of  their  con- 
formity to  it.  Mr.  Willison  denies  none  of  these  facts.  How,  then, 
can  he  call  the  plain  and  necessary  consequences  of  them  slander  ? 

§  20.  Alex.  Mr.  Willison  adds,  that  the  Associate  Presbytery 
cast  slander  on  the  Parliament  of  Scotland,  which  met  immediately 
after  the  Revolution,  when  they  represent  that  Parliament  as  impos- 
ing the  oath  of  allegiance  to  exclude  the  oath  of  the  covenant*. 

Imp.  Test,  page  169. 


ALEXANDER  AND   RUFUS.  269 

RuF.  In  order  to  establish  the  charge  of  slander,  Mr.  Willison 
ought  to  have  given  the  words  of  the  passage  he  refers  to.  Having 
observed,  that  the  Parliament  appointed  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  be 
taken  in  place  of  any  other  oaths  imposed  by  the  laws  and  acts  of  pre- 
ceding Parliaments, — the  presbytery  adds  these  words  :  "  Though  it 
may  be  said,  this  had  respect  to  the  oaths  imposed  during  the  perse- 
cuting period ;  yet,  the  terms  in  which  the  act  is  conceived,  appear 
plainly  to  exclude  the  oath  of  the  covenant,  which  contains  a  very 
solemn  test  of  allegiance  to  the  sovereign  ;  especially,  when  it  is  con- 
sidered that  the  act  of  rescissory,  (whereby  a  covenanted  reformation 
was  razed,  and  the  acts  and  deeds  of  that  covenanting  period  were 
declared  seditious  and  treasonable,)  was  not  repealed;  and  also,  that 
the  draught  of  an  act  for  excluding  such  as  had  a  share  in  the  op- 
pressions of  the  former  period,  from  places  of  public  trust,  was  laid 
aside,  after  it  had  been  twice  read  in  Parliament.  Hence,  such  per- 
sons were  admitted  into  places  of  public  trust  and  power,  as  were 
both  in  principle  and  practice,  opposite  to  the  covenanted  reforma- 
tion." 

Thus,  considering  the  disposition  which  the  Parliament  discovered 
towards  the  solemn  league  and  covenant,  in  leaving  it  buried  under 
the  act  rescissory,  and  in  showing  favor  to  its  enemies, — there  is  no 
reason  to  doubt  the  justice  of  this  inference  ;  That,  as  they  declared 
in  the  act  referred  to,  that  no  oath,  which  the  subjects  were  directed 
to  take  by  any  preceding  laws  or  acts  of  Parliament,  was  now  to  be 
accounted  a  sufficient  test  of  allegiance  to  the  sovereign  ;  so  they 
meant  that  the  solemn  league  and  covenant,  (the  taking  of  which  they 
well  knew,  had  been  enjoined  by  laws  and  acts  of  preceding  Parlia- 
ments in  the  reforming  period,)  was  not  to  be  accounted  such  a  test, 
or  considered  as  laying  the  subjects  under  any  obligation  to  the  alle- 
giance due  to  the  sovereign.  It  appears,  then,  that  it  was  not  only 
from  the  Parliament's  passing  an  act  imposing  an  oath  of  allegiance  ; 
but  from  the  manner  in  which  the  act  was  expressed,  and  from  the 
circumstances  which  attended  the  passing  of  it,  that  the  Associate 
Presbytery  inferred  the  Parliament's  intention  of  excluding  the  solemn 
league  and  covenant. 

Alex.  Some  have  blamed  the  Associate  Presbytery,  for  saying  in 
their  Testimony,  that  by  the  Parliament's  act  of  settlement  at  the 
revolution,  a  retrograde  motion  is  made  near  an  hundred  years  back- 
ward ;  and  all  the  legal  securities  in  the  covenanting  period  from  1638 
to  1650  are  overlooked  and  passed  by  ;  and  that  all  the  acts  of  the 
first  Parliament  of  Charles  the  Second,  together  with  the  infamous  act 
rescissory  in  1662,  by  which  the  covenanted  reformation  was  razed 
and  the  acts  and  deeds  of  that  covenanting  period  were  declared  se- 
ditious and  treasonable  are  left  untouched. 

KuF.  In  the  covenanting  period,  several  acts  of  Parliament  were 
passed  in  favor  of  reformation ;  such  as,  the  Parliament's  ratifying 


270  ALEXA.NDER  AND  RUFUS. 

in  1640  the  acts  of  the  General  Assembly  ordaining  episcopal  govern- 
ment to  be  held  unlawful ;  their  rescinding  all  laws  giving  places  of 
civil  power  and  trust  to  ministers  of  the  gospel ;  their  ratifying  the 
act  of  the  General  Assembly  authorizing  the  solemn  league  and  cove- 
nant, which  was  an  engagement  to  endeavor  the  preservation  of  the 
reformed  religion  of  the  church  of  Scotland,  in  discipline  and  govern- 
ment as  well  as  in  doctrine  and  worship,  and  also  the  advancement  of 
the  reformation  in  the  kingdoms  of  England  and  Ireland  in  the  same 
respects  :  their  ratifying  in  1649  the  act  of  the  General  Assembly  ap- 
proving the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  and  asserting  the  in- 
trinsic power  which  the  church  has  received  from  Christ  to  have  synods 
as  often  as  is  necessary  for  her  welfare  :  their  acts  forbidding  persons 
that  were  malignant  and  disaffected  to  the  covenanted  work  of  re- 
formation to  be  employed  in  places  of  power  and  trust ;  and  abolish- 
ing patronages  as  a  popish  custom,  having  no  warrant  in  God's  word. 
Among  the  acts  of  the  first  session  of  the  first  Parliament  of  Charles 
the  Second,  in  1661,  an  infamous  act  rescissory  was  passed,  by  which 
the  Parliaments  of  the  covenanting  period  formerly  mentioned  were 
rescinded,  and  all  their  acts  and  deeds  were  declared  null  and  void. 
Another  infamous  act  rescissory  was  passed  in  the  second  session  of 
the  same  Parliament,  in  1662  by  which  the  covenanted  reformation 
was  razed,  and  the  acts  of  that  covenanting  period  were  declared  se- 
ditious and  treasonable.  The  solemn  covenants,  national  and  solemn 
league,  were,  by  that  act,  declared  to  be  in  themselves  unlawful  oaths  ; 
and,  therefore,  all  acts  and  constitutions  approving  them,  were  an- 
nulled. These  acts  rescissory  were  not  repealed  by  the  act  of  settle- 
ment at  the  revolution. 

Alex.  It  has  been  inferred  from  the  general  clauses  in  the  act  of 
settlement  of  the  revolution,  [viz  :  "  hereby  reviving,  ratifying  and 
confirming  all  laws  against  popery  and  papists,  for  the  maintenance 
and  perservation  of  the  true  reformed  protestant  religion,  and  for  the 
true  church  of  Christ  within  this  kingdom ;''  and  after  the  mention- 
ing of  several  acts  thereby  rescinded,  it  follows,  "  with  all  other  acts, 
laws,  statutes,  ordinances  and  proclamations,  contrary  or  prejudicial 
to,  inconsistent  with,  or  derogatory  from  the  protestant  religion  and 
Presbyterian  government  now  established,"]  that  the  acts  rescissory 
were  included  among  the  acts,  statutes  and  proclamations  mentioned 
in  that  clause  ;  and  materally  rescinded,  so  far  as  any  of  them  were 
contrary  to  the  religion  and  church  government  established  by  this 
act ;  an  act  which  Mr.  Willison  says,  rescinded  all  the  unrighteous 
acts  of  the  preceding  reigns  against  the  church.  * 

RuF.  But  such  general  clauses,  in  any  act  of  Parliament,  must  be 
understood  according  to  the  particulars  specified  in  that  act;  and, 
therefore,  the  general  clauses  in  this  act  of  settlement,  must  be  un- 

*  Imp.  Test,  page  54. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  271 

derstood  consistently  with  the  Parliament's  leaving  the  acts  rescis- 
sory before  mentioned  unrepealed  :  and  consistently  with  the  account 
which  the  Parliament  made  of  the  proceedings  of  the  church  and  state 
in  the  period  between  1638  and  1650,  as  illegal  and  treasonable. 
The  manner  in  which  presbyterial  church  government  is  restored  in 
the  act  of  settlement  shows,  that  the  parliament  purposely  overlooked 
the  acts  of  the  period  now  mentioned,  or  rather  considered  them  as 
annulled  by  the  act  rescissory.  In  the  act  of  settlement,  the  parlia- 
ment say,  "they  ratify  the  Presbyterian  church  government  and  dis- 
cipline estabhshed  by  an  act  in  the  year  1592,  and  thereafter  received 
by  the  general  consent  of  the  nation/'  while  no  notice  is  taken  of  the 
legal  securities  that  had  been  given  to  Presbyterian  church  govern- 
ment and  discipline  in  the  period  between  1638  and  1650.  That  the 
parliament,  in  that  act,  did  not  consider  the  acts  of  Parliament  in  the 
covenanting  period  as  in  force,  appears  also,  from  their  reserving  the 
part  of  the  act  in  1592  which  related  to  patronages  for  farther  consid- 
eration ;  for,  they  could  not  have  done  so,  if  they  had  considered  pa- 
tronages as  abolished  by  the  act  of  Parliament  passed  in  1649.  In 
short  it  is  unreasonable  to  pretend  that  these  acts  rescissory  were  re- 
pealed on  account  of  general  clauses  in  an  act  of  parhament,  such  as, 
that  in  the  act  authorising  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  books  of  dis- 
cipline: [hereby  reviving,  ratifying  and  confirming  all  laws  against 
popery  and  papists,  and  for  the  maintainance  and  preservation  of  the 
true  reformed  protestant  religion,  and  for  the  true  church  of  Christ;] 
while  such  general  expressions  could  not  be  justly  understood  as  ex- 
tending to  laws  that  were  annulled  by  acts  rescissory,  which  were  left 
untouched  by  that  act ;  and  while  these  acts  rescissory  are  retained  in 
the  body  of  the  standing  laws  of  Scotland,  and  while  it  is  well  known 
that  in  the  law  books  and  in  the  practice  of  civil  courts,  neither  the 
parliaments  of  Scotland  in  the  period  between  1638  and  1650,  nor  the 
laws  passed  by  them,  are  considered  as  of  any  authority, 

Alex.  If  presbyterial  church  government  was  established,  it  seems 
not  material  to  enquire  what  preceding  acts  of  parliament  were  refer- 
red to  in  the  settlement  of  it. 

RuF.  It  is,  however,  material  to  observe,  that  the  settlement  of 
presbytery  by  the  act  of  parliament  in  1592,  was  by  no  means  to  be 
so  much  approved,  as  the  settlement  of  it  in  the  covenanting  period 
between  1638  and  1650.  First,  because  by  the  act  in  1592,  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  was  not  allowed,  when  the  King  or  his  commissioner 
was  present,  to  exercise  the  right  of  nominating  and  appointing  the 
time  and  place  of  their  next  meeting,  in  which  restriction  there  was  a 
manifest  encroachment  on  the  intrinsic  power  and  independence  of 
the  church  of  Christ.  Secondly,  because  there  was  no  reference  in 
the  parliament's  settlement  of  presbytery  in  1592,  as  there  was  in  the 
period  between  1638  and  1650,  to  preceding  acts  of  the  General  As- 


272  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

sembly,  determining  it  to  be  of  Divine  right  and  institution,  and  con- 
demning prelacy  as  contrary  to  the  word  of  God. 

Alex.  The  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  was  authorised  by  that 
parliament. 

RuF.  There  were,  however,  two  evils  in  the  parliament's  manner  of 
authorizing  the  Westminster  Confession.  One  was,  the  omission  of 
any  reference  to  the  adoption  of  the  confession  by  the  act  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  in  1647,  rendering  the  confession  less  clear  and  explic- 
it with  regard  to  the  church's  intrinsic  power  which  is  asserted  in  that 
act.  The  other  evil  was,  the  parliament's  taking  upon  them  to  pre- 
scribe, by  their  own  sole  authority,  what  the  church  was  to  receive  as 
her  Confession  of  Faith.  They  say,  in  the  act  of  settlement,  "  They 
ratify  the  Confession  of  Faith  now  read  in  their  presence,  as  the  pub- 
lic and  avowed  confession  of  this  church  ;"  without  taking  any  notice 
of  the  act  of  the  Assembly  in  1647  ;  a  manner  of  ratifying  a  confes- 
sion highly  Erastian.  It  may  not  at  all  detract  from  the  indepen- 
dence of  two  nations,  for  the  constituted  authority  of  the  one  to  rati- 
fy a  commendable  act  already  passed  into  a  law  by  the  constituted 
authority  of  the  other ;  such  ratification  being  no  more  in  effect  than 
a  sort  of  recommendation  of  that  act.  But  it  would  be  inconsistent 
with  such  independence,  for  one  of  these  nations  to  pass  such  an  act 
binding  on  the  other,  without  referring  to  any  former  act  of 
that  other.  ISo  it  was  contrary  to  the  independence  of  the  church, 
for  the  parliament  to  establish  the  Confession  of  Faith,  without  re- 
ferring to  the  former  act  of  the  General  Assembly  receiving  and  ap- 
proving it. 

Alex.  The  Associate  Presbytery  represent  the  taking  of  the  oath 
of  abjuration*  as  a  national  sin,  which  Mr.  Willison  says,  they  can- 
not make  out.f 

KuF.  He  does  not  venture,  however,  to  say,  that  the  taking  of  it 
was  no  sin :  and,  if  it  was  a  sin  at  all,  it  must  have  been  a  national 
sin,  because  the  oath  was  imposed  by  the  civil  government  upon  all 

*  The  part  of  the  oath  of  abjuration  -which  was  the  subject  of  controversy,  runs 
in  the  following  terms  ;  "  I  do  faithtully  promise  to  the  utmost  of  my  power  to 
support,  maintain  and  defend  the  succession  of  the  crown  against  him  (that  is  the 
Pretender)  and  all  other  persons  whatsover,  as  the  same  is  and  stands  settled,  by 
an  act  entitled  an  act  declaring  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  subject,  and  settling 
the  succession  of  the  crown  to  her  present  Majesty,  and  the  heirs  of  her  body,  be- 
ing protestants  :  and  as  the  same,  by  another  act  entitled  an  act  for  the  farther 
limitation  of  the  crown,  and  better  securing  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  subject, 
is  and  stands  settled  and  entailed  to  the  Princes,  Sophia,  Electress  and  Duchess 
Dowager  of  Hanover,  and  the  heirs  ofher  body,  being  protestant." — By  the  change 
which  King  George  the  First  got  the  parliament  to  make  in  the  terms  of  this  oath 
WHICH  was  substituted  for  as  ;  so  as  to  run  thus :  "  I  promise  to  defend  the  suc- 
cession of  the  crown,  which  succession  is  and  stands  settled  by  an  act  entitled  an 
act  for  the  farther  limitation  of  the  crown,"  &c.  But  this  change  makes  no  real 
alteration  in  the  sense  of  the  oath. 

t  Imp.  Test.  Page  221. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  273 

in  civil  and  military  trust ;  and  afterwards  upon  the  ministers  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland.  It  was  objected  to  this  oath,  that  it  was  an  ac- 
knowledgment of  the  whole  constitution  as  it  was  settled  at  the  union 
between  the  two  nations,  and  as  it  included  the  legal  securities  given 
to  the  establishment  of  prelacy  in  England  ;  and  that  it  bore  a  refer- 
ence to  some  acts  of  the  English  parliament,  wherein  it  was  required 
as  a  qualification  in  the  successor  to  the  crown,  that  he  should  be  of 
the  communion  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  should  maintain  that 
Church,  as  by  law  established.  Other  objections  were  offered,  and 
answers  given  by  them ;  but  that  which  I  have  now  mentioned  with 
regard  to  prelacy,  could  never  be  resolved  to  the  satisfaction  of  such 
as  had  a  due  regard  to  the  obligation,  which  the  whole  land  was  un- 
der from  the  solemn  league  and  covenant,  to  seek  by  all  scriptural 
means  the  extirpation  of  prelacy. 

Mr.  Willison  could  not  be  ignorant,  that  in  general,  the  most  judi- 
cious and  faithful  ministers  in  Scotland  refused  to  take  this  oath  ;  and 
that,  on  the  other  hand,  the  takers  of  it  were  mostly  such  as  after- 
wards fell  in  with  other  corrupt  measures.  Mr.  Boston,  in  his  Me- 
moirs, informs  us,  that,  when  the  Assembly  met  in  the  year  1712,  the 
lawfulness  of  the  oath  of  abjuration  was  debated  pro  and  con  in  a 
committee  of  the  whole  house.  "All  I  had  thereby,^'  says  he,  "was 
that  the  principles  on  which  the  answers  to  the  objections  against 
taking  that  oath  were  founded,  seemed  to  be  of  such  latitude,  that 
by  them  any  oath  might  pass." — "  Being  come  home,"  adds  he  ''I 
did  this  day  spend  some  time  in  prayer  for  light  from  the  Lord,  about 
that  oath.  And  thereafter  entering  on  to  read  the  prints  I  had  on  it 
in  order  to  form  the  judgment  about  it,  I  immediately  fell  on  the  act, 
whereby  it  was  first  of  all  framed  and  imposed,  and  finding  thereby 
the  declaring  intent  of  the  oath  to  be  to  preserve  the  act  inviolable, 
on  which  the  security  of  the  church  of  England  depends,  I  was  sur- 
prised and  astonished ;  and,  upon  the  shocking  discovery,  my  heart 
was  turned  to  loath  that  oath  which  I  had  before  scrupled."*  He 
also  relates,  that,  after  this,  he  took  the  aforesaid  act,  along  with  him, 
to  a  meeting  of  synod;  and  when  he  produced  it  there,  the  members 
seemed  to  be  struck  with  it.  But  Mr.  James  Ramsay,  of  Kelso,  a 
man  of  great  influence  in  the  judicatories,  answered  by  distinguishing 
between  the  Church  of  England  as  a  protestant  church,  and  as  a 
church  having  such  a  government  and  worship  ;  and  admitting  the  in- 
tent of  the  oath  in  the  first  sense,  but  not  in  the  second.  "This," 
S17S  Mr.  Boston,  "was  truly  stumbling  to  me,  and  served  to  con- 
iirji  me  against  the  oath.  I  plainly  saw,  that  some  were  resolute  to 
answer,  when  it  seemed  to  me,  they  hardly  knew  what  to  answer." 

Alex.  Mr.  Willison  tells  us,  that  the  most  strict  and  zealous  min- 
isters in  Scotland,  were  brought  to  declare,  both  from  the  pulpit,  and 

*  Memoirs  of  Mr.  Boston,  page  274  and  275. 
18 


274  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

press,  that  the  embracing  or  refusing  the  oath  of  abjuration  did  not 
afford  the  least  ground  for  separation. 

RuF.  We  do  not  find  the  Associate  Presbytery  saying,  that  this 
evil  alone  was  sufficient  ground  for  separation.  But  they  acknowledge 
it  to  be  a  moral  evil,  involving  the  nation  in  guilt,  particularly,  in 
that  of  covenant-breaking  ;  and  judge,  that  it  is  one  ground  of  deep 
humiliation  before  the  Lord.  And  it  is  not  to  be  lamented,  that  they 
whose  office  it  is,  to  show  the  Lord's  people  their  transgressions, 
should  be  employed  in  covering  sin,  with  such  frivolous  excuses,  as 
those  which  Mr.  Willison  tells  us,  were  used  by  such  as  attempted 
to  justify  the  swearing  of  this  insnaring  oath. 

§  22.  Alex.  The  oath  of  abjuration  brings  to  my  mind  the  form 
of  swearing  by  laying  the  hand  upon  and  kissing  the  gospels.  The 
article  concerning  this  matter  in  the  testimony  of  the  Associate  Pres- 
bytery, some  think,  might  have  been  omitted  ;  as  it  was  not  among 
the  evils  about  which  they  had  to  deal  with  the  judicatories  of  the 
church. 

Rup.  The  Associate  Presbytery  speaking  of  the  consequence  of  the 
incorporating  union  between  Scotland  and  England,  observe,  that  this 
superstitious  form  of  swearing  was  then  introduced  into  Scotland ; 
which  is  a  very  corrupt  innovation  in  that  part  of  Divine  worship.  It 
is  contrary  to  the  scripture  pattern,  which  ought  alone  to  direct  us, 
as  in  every  other  part,  so  in  this  solemn  act  of  worship.  "Abraham 
said  to  the  King  of  Sodom,  I  have  lifted  up  mine  hand  unto  the  Lord, 
the  Most  High  God,  the  Possessor  of  heaven  and  earth,  that  I  will 
not  take  any  thing  which  is  thine,''  Gen.  xiv.  22.  The  uncreated  an- 
gel of  the  covenant,  is  represented  by  Daniel  and  John  as  "  lifting  up 
his  hand  to  heaven,  and  swearing  by  him  that  liveth  for  ever  and 
ever,"  Dan.  xii.  6.     Revel,  x.  5,  G. 

When  God  speaking  of  himself  after  the  manner  of  men,  represents 
himself  as  swearing,  he  expresses  it  by  saying,  that  he  had  lifted  up 
his  hand  ;  a  phrase  which  is  used,  six  times,  in  this  sense,  in  the  20th 
chapter  of  Kzekiel.* 

The  moral  worship  of  God,  to  which  swearing  by  his  name  belongs 
ought  to  be  performed  in  such  a  manner  as  is  conformable  to  the  ex- 
amples of  it  recorded  in  scripture. 

*Arclibisliop  Tillotson,  in  his  sermon  on  Heb.  vi.  16,  says,  that,  as  to  the  form 
of  swearing  by  lifting  up  the  hand,  "  there  is  not  the  least  intimation  in  scripture 
that  it  was  prescribed  and  appointed  by  God,  but  voluntarily  instituted  and  taken 
up  by  men."  But,  surely  in  other  cases,  an  approved  example  of  an  usage  in  the 
worship  of  God,  when  it  is  neither  singular  nor  disagreeable  to  what  is  taught  in 
any  other  part  of  scripture,  is  justly  considered  as  an  intimation  of  God's  appoint- 
ment of  that  usage.  So  Abel's  offering  of  sacrifice  being  acceptable  to  God,  was 
an  intimation  that  God  had  appointed  that  rite  after  the  fall.  So  the  examples  re- 
corded in  scripture  of  the  assembling  of  christians  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  for 
the  hearing  of  the  word  preached  and  for  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  supper,  are 
an  intimation  that  God  had  appointed  that  day  to  be  the  christian  Sabbath.  In 
like  manner,  the  uniform  use  of  lifting  up  the  hand^  in  the  examples  recorded  in 
scripture  intimates,  that  God  appointed  this  gesture  to  be  used  in  swearing.  Aa 
to  putting  the  hand  under  the  thigh,  it  is  shown  to  be  no  exception. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  275 

Alex.  This  is  not  the  only  form  of  swearing  mentioned  in  scrip- 
ture. Putting  the  hand  under  the  thigh  of  the  administrator  was  the 
manner  in  which  Abraham  made  his  servant  Eliezer  swear  to  him  con- 
cerning the  affair  of  taking  a  wife  for  his  son  Isaac;  in  which  Jacob 
made  Joseph  swear  to  bury  him  in  Canaan. 

RuF.  The  act  of  putting  the  hand  under  the  thigh  of  the  adminis- 
trator is  far  from  being  of  the  same  consideration  in  this  matter  with 
the  form  of  lifting  up  the  hand.  The  former  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  used,  like  the  latter,  as  a  sign  of  the  appeal  made  to  God  in  an 
oath.  Lifting  up  the  hand,  as  was  just  now  mentioned,  is,  in  scrip- 
ture phraseology,  put  for  swearing.  Exod.  vi.  8,  "  I  will  bring  you 
into  the  land  concerning  which  I  did  swear,"  in  the  Heb.,  "  I  lifted 
up  my  hand :"  so  the  same  phrase  is  rendered  in  Numb.  xiv.  30  :  But 
the  expression,  "  Putting  the  hand  under  the  thigh"  of  another  man 
is  never  used  to  signify  swearing  in  the  scripture ;  nor  as  far  as  I  have 
heard  in  the  language  of  any  nation  in  the  world.  Judicious  com- 
mentators think,  that  in  the  instances  to  which  you  refer,  putting  the 
hand  under  the  thigh  is  to  be  considered  as  a  token  of  homage  or 
subjection,  or  of  a  belief  that  Abraham  and  Jacob  had  of  the  Mes- 
siah, who  w^as  to  descend  from  them  according  to  the  flesh  ;  the  pos- 
terity of  the  patriarchs  being  described  as  coming  out  of  the  thighs, 
Gen.  xvi.  26,  "  The  souls  that  came  out  of  Jacob's  lions  ;"  in  the 
Heb.  "out  of  his  thigh."  Judg.  viii.  30,  "  Gideon  had  seventy  sons  '  r, 
of  his  body  begotten  f  in  Heb.  "  going  out  of  his  thigh."  Nor  do  I 
know  of  any  just  exception  to  the  opinion  suggested  by  a  late  ingen- 
ious writer,  Mr  Harmer,  who  thinks  that  Abraham's  servant  might 
swear  with  one  hand  under  his  master's  thigh,  and  the  other  stretch- 
ed out  to  heaven. 

Alex.  Swearing  being  an  ordinance  not  peculiar  to  the  church,  but 
common  to  mankind,  is  to  be  performed  by  every  one  in  such  a  form 
as  is  authorized  by  the  law  or  usage  of  his  country.  It  is  the  solemn 
appeal  to  God  ;  it  is  engaging  to  speak  the  truth,  and  calling  upon 
him  to  witness  our  sincerity,  that  constitute  the  oath  and  obligation. 
If  this  be  done,  it  is  immaterial,  whether  any,  or  what  form  be  used. 

RuF.  As  swearing  is  an  act  of  natural  worship,  not  peculiar  to 
the  church,  but  common  to  mankind  ;  so  is  lifting  up  the  hand  a  nat- 
tural  sign  of  that  worship.  Men  are  naturally  led  to  use  this  ges- 
ture to  signify,  that  the  God,  by  whom  we  swear,  dwells  in  heaven, 
from  whence  he  beholds  the  children  of  men,  that  he  may  render  to 
to  every  one  according  to  his  works,  Pslam  xxxiii.  13,  14.  Prov. 
xxiv.  12.  This  impression  seems  to  have  led  the  heathens  to  use 
this  gesture  both  in  prayer  and  swearing.  Thus  when  Yirgil's  hero 
addresses  the  gods,  he  lifts  up  his  hands  to  heaven : 

Tendens  ad  sidera  palmas. 


276  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

So  does  Latinus  in  the  act  of  swearing : 

Suspiciens  coelum,tendit  adsidera  dextram, 
Hcec  eadem,  ^nea,  terram,  mare,  sidera,  jure* 

Hence  I  could  never  see,  that  the  civil  establishment  of  this  form  of 
swearing  (as  in  Scotland)  could  be  justly  considered  as  an  imposition 
on  the  conscience  of  any  ;  because  it  is  not  a  right  of  any  arbitrary  in- 
stitution :  it  is  no  peculiarity  of  any  religious  society,  but  a  natural 
sign  which  conscience  leads  men  to  use  in  expressing  their  regard  to 
the  Deity.  It  is  the  language  not  of  any  human  convention,  but  of 
nature.  Neither  heathen  nor  Mahomedan  could  object  to  it  as  con- 
trary to  their  religious  opinions. 

With  regard  to  such  as  bear  the  christian  name,  their  opposition  to 
it  is  most  absurd,  while  it  is  both  agreeable  to  the  light  of  nature,  and 
recommended  by  the  approved  examples  of  scripture. 

It  is  true,  that  inconsideration  and  the  violence  of  party  spirit  have 
led  some  to  such  an  absurdity  as  to  reject  what  is  abundantly  authoriz- 
ed by  the  light  of  nature  and  the  consent  of  mankind  in  all  ages.  Thus 
some  have  denied,  that  there  ought  to  be  any  use  of  oaths,  or  even  of 
the  magistrate's  ofi&ce.  Such  opinions  are  not  to  be  countenanced, 
but  censured  by  those  appointed  to  be  guardians  of  the  welfare  of 
civil  society. 

It  cannot  be  pretended,  that  any  other  gesture  would  be  better 
adapted  to  the  design  of  an  oath,  which  is,  that  of  ascertaining  the  truth 
by  the  testimony  of  the  person  sworn,  than  that  of  lifting  up  the  hand. 
It  is  true  that  an  appeal  to  God,  engaging  to  speak  the  truth  and  calling 
upon  him  to  attest  our  sincerity,  constitute  the  oath  and  obligation  ; 
yet  when  the  oath  is  formally  administered  to  a  person,  and  some  ges- 
ture must  be  used,  it  becomes  the  person's  duty,  both  in  opposition 
to  such  a  careless  deportment  as  would  be  unbecoming  in  any  act  of 
solemn  religious  worship,  and  also  in  opposition  to  superstitious  cere- 
monies, to  use  the  gesture  approved  by  the  light  of  nature  aud  recom- 
mended by  scripture  example  :  the  designed,  deliberate  neglect  of 
which,  in  this  act  of  worship,  cannot  be  free  from  a  contempt  of  the 
Divine  will  and  authority. 

It  may  be  farther  observed,  that  the  mode  of  swearing  by  laying  the 
hand  upon,  and  kissing,  the  Bible,  or  that  part  of  it  called  the  gospels, 
is  both  superstitious,  and  in  some  respects,  idolatrous.  It  cannot  be 
pretended  to  have  any  warrant  in  scripture,  or  to  be  any  other  than  a 
human  invention,  in  arbitrary  rite  ;  and  therefore  the  use  of  it  as  a 

*  Latinus  upward  turned  his  suppliant  eyes, 
And  his  right  hand  uplifted  to  the  skies  ; 
What  thou  hast  sworn,  I  too,  Eneas,  swear 
By  earth,  by  sea,  by  every  starry  sphere. 

^neid,  Lib.,  xii. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  277 

way  or  mean  of  Divine  worship,  is  according  to  our  Confession  of 
Faith^  superstitious  :  for  God  is  not  to  be  worshiped  in  any  other  way 
or  by  any  other  mean,  than  those  appointed  in  his  word.  Kissing 
is  a  rite  which  was  never  used  in  the  worship  of  the  true  God ;  but 
frequently  in  that  of  idols,  such  as  the  calves  which  Jeroboam  set  up 
in  Dan  and  Bethel.  Hence  it  was  said  of  their  worshipers,  "  Let 
the  men,  that  sacrifice,  kiss  the  calves,"  Hosea  xiii.  2.  It  was  used 
in  the  worship  of  Baal.  Hence  God  said  to  Elijah,  "  I  have  left  me 
seven  thousand  in  Israel,  all  the  knees  which  have  not  bowed  to  Baal, 
and  every  mouth  that  hath  not  kissed  him."  From  these  texts  it  ap- 
pears, that  kissing  was  used  as  a  rite  of  religious  worship  as  well  as 
bowing;  and  the  one,  externally  directed  to  an  idol,  was  idolatry,  as 
well  as  the  other.  Hence  it  is  evident,  that  kissing  the  Bible  is  a 
symbolizing  with  an  idolatrous  form  of  worship  contrary  to  the  Di- 
vine prohibition,  Dent.  xii.  10,  "Inquire  not  after  their  gods,  saying, 
How  did  these  nations  serve  their  gods  ?  even  will  I  do  likewise." 
Nay,  I  fear,  we  cannot  vindicate  this  practice  from  the  charge  of  idol- 
atry ;  for  in  this  form  of  swearing  the  book  is  exhibited,  not  only  to 
ascertain  the  person  sworn,  but  to  be  regarded  as  a  sacred  object ;  to 
which  the  external  act  of  kissing  (which  according  to  the  texts  just 
now  quoted,  is  an  external  expression  of  religious  worship,  as  well  as 
bowing,)  is  directed.  The  Bible  is  indeed^  holy;  but  it  is  no  more  an 
object  of  religious  worship  on  that  account,  than  the  saints  and  angels 
on  account  of  their  holiness.  The  Bible  teaches  us  to  direct  our  re- 
ligious worship  not  to  itself,  but  to  its  Divine  Author  alone. 

Alex.  But,  in  this  case,  neither  the  administrator,  nor  he  who 
swears,  has  any  intention  of  worshiping  the  Bible. 

Rup.  Heathens  and  Papists  have  alleged,  that,  in  bowing  before 
their  images  and  kissing  them,  they  intended  to  worship  God  through 
the  medium  of  the  images.  But  whatever  be  the  intention  of  the 
worshiper,  his  act  of  religious  worship  is  idolatrous,  if  it  be  exter- 
nally directed  to  an  image,  book  or  any  creature  whatever.  When 
the  Israelites  worshiped  the  calves  of  Dan  and  Bethel,  though  they 
professed  to  worship  Jehovah,  the  true  God,  yet  they  were  charged 
with  idolatry  ;  because  they  externally  worshiped  or  bowed  down  to 
calves  which  had  been  set  up  for  that  purpose.  And  is  there  not  the 
same  reason  to  charge  those,  who  use  the  form  of  swearing  by  kiss- 
ing a  book,  with  that  crime  ?  Has  the  act  of  kissing,  (which  in  this 
case  is  an  expression  of  worship,)  any  other  object  than  a  certain  book 
which  is  brought  forward  for  that  purpose  ? 

Many  others  in  the  Reformed  Churches  have  borne  testimony 
against  this  form  of  swearing,  as  well  as  the  Seceders.  It  is,  undoubt- 
edly, contrary  to  the  principles  and  practice  of  the  church  of  Scot- 
land. In  the  national  synod  of  the  Reformed  Churches  of  France, 
which  was  held  in  Gap,  in  the  year  1613,  when  it  was  moved,"Wheth- 
er  an  oath  might  be  lawfully  taken  before  the  magistrate  by  laying 


278  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

the  hands  on  and  kissing  the  Bible?  The  Assembly  judging  that 
ceremony  to  be  of  dangerous  consequence,  declared  that  it  ought  not 
to  be  used,  but  that  whoso  are  called  out  to  swear,  shall  content  them- 
selves with  the  bare  lifting  up  of  their  hands. "  Mr.  Mather,  in  his 
history  of  New  England,  says,  these  famous  divines.  Rivet,  Pareus, 
and  Yoeiius  wrote  against  the  oath-book  ;  that  Dr.  Goodwin  and  Mr. 
Nye  reckoned  it  the  worst  of  the  English  ceremonies  :  that  the  bles- 
sed martyr  William  Thorp  refused  it,  saying,  "If  I  touch  the  book, 
the  meaning  of  that  ceremony  is  nothing  else  but  that  I  swear  by  it." 
The  same  author  informs  us,  that  multitudes  of  pious  and  sober  men 
in  New  England,  scrupling  this  mode  of  swearing,  have  been  put 
from  serving  on  juries,  and  many  of  them  most  unaccountably  fined 
and  imprisoned  ;  thus  suffering  persecution  for  bearing  testimony  to 
the  purity  of  Divine  worship  in  that  important  part  of  it,  an  oath. 
Mr.  Mather  represents  these  confessors  as  saying  in  defence  of  their 
conduct,  "All  religious  worship,  not  commanded  by  God,  is  forbid- 
den; all  symbolical  ceremonies  enjoined  on  men  in  religious  worship 
are  made  parts  of  it ;  our  swearing  on  the  gospels  is  a  swearing  by 
the  gospel ;  and  therefore  idolatrous,  as  is  evident  from  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  canon  law,  and  the  common  law.  Nor  has  a  particular 
magistrate  power  to  put  any  other  interpretation  on  the  law." 

Alex  In  my  opinion,  these  good  people  mistook  the  matter,  as 
well  as  the  Seceders.  The  ceremony  of  kissing  the  book  is  not  the 
oath^  but  only  the  sign  of  it. 

RuF.  I  hope,  Sir,  you  will  be  so  candid  as  to  hear  these  people  a 
little  farther.  "  This  mode,''  a,dded  they,  "is  naturally  and  necessa- 
rily, as  well  as  originally,  a  swearing  by  the  gospel ;  for  otherwise, 
were  it  a  sign  only,  it  would  signify  no  more  than  the  presence  and 
consent  of  the  person  that  swears.  But  this  pretence  is  superseded 
by  the  form  of  the  oath  of  supremacy,  which  as  it  is  prescribed  in  our 
statute  law,  concludes  with  these  words.  By  the  contents  of  this  hook. 
Besides,  if  the  book  is  used  for  no  other  end  than  to  signify  that  a 
person  is  sworn,  why  should  the  Bible  be  used  rather  than  any  other 
book  ?  The  touching  of  a  table  may  signify  this,  as  much  as  the 
touching  of  the  Bible.  The  Bible  is  a  sacred  thing :  and  to  put  it  to 
a  mere  civil  use  is  a  profane  abuse  of  it."  On  this  point  I  shall  read 
an  observation  of  Mr.  Gellatly,  which  deserves  our  attention.  "  The 
act  of  laying  the  hand  on  and  kissing  the  book,"  says  he,  "is  of  an 
ordained  mystical  signification,  being  appointed  to  signify  the  per- 
son's appeal  to  God  as  witnessing  to  the  truth,  or  as  Judge  and 
Avenger  in  case  of  perjury,  there  being  no  other  appeal  to  him  in 
the  oath,  nor  mention  made  in  it  of  his  sacred  name,  except  in  the 
prayer  at  the  close,  so  help  me  God;  which  may  with  reverence  be 
used  in  setting  about  any  other  lawful  action,  as  well  as  that  of 
swearing.  So  that  if  an  appeal  to  God  be  not  made  in  laying  the 
hand  on  and  kissing  the  book,  there  is  no  appeal  to  him  ;  and,  con- 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  279 

sequently,  no  oath  at  all.  Thus  the  form  of  swearing  by  God  is  laid 
aside  ;  which  is  expressly  enjoined  in  scripture,  Deut.  vi.  13,  "  Thou 
shalt  swear  by  his  name  :"  it  is  exemplified  by  the  saints  in  scripture, 
Nehem.  xiii.  25,  ''  I  made  them  swear  by  God  :''  yea,  we  have  his  own 
imitable  example,  Heb.  vi.  13,  "  Because  he  could  swear  by  no  greater, 
he  swore  by  himself.''  It  is  matter  of  lamentation,  that  the  touching 
and  kissing  the  book,  should  be  put  in  the  room  of  that  fearful  and 
glorious  name  in  the  matter  of  an  oath.  If  this  be  not  a  leaving  of 
God's  way,  and  choosing  the  devices  of  men  in  a  matter  of  Divine 
worship,  I  know  not  what  may  be  reckoned  a  doing  so." 

Alex.  It  has  been  observed,  that  persons  should  be  allowed  to 
use  such  a  form  of  swearing  as  is  most  adapted  to  impress  their  minds 
with  the  weight  and  solemnity  of  an  oath,  and  with  the  danger  of 
perjury. 

RuF.  Many  can  see  little  solemnity  in  the  kissing  of  a  book,  and  are 
apprehensive,  that  it  leads  ignorant  and  thoughtless  people  who  re- 
gard it  as  a  mere  insignificant  ceremony,  to  swallow  oaths  with  the 
greatest  indifference.  Some  pretend  to  experience  great  reverence 
and  awe,  when  they  lay  their  hand  upon  and  kiss  the  Bible.  But  it  is 
not  rational,  as  Mr.  Gellatly  observes,  to  suppose,  that  a  book,  or  any 
thing  else,  will  be  of  much  weight  in  this  matter  with  any,  who  have 
not  an  awe  of  the  name  of  God  upon  their  spirits,  And  how  ridicu- 
lous is  it  for  persons  to  stand  more  in  awe  of  the  book  than  of  the 
7iame  of  God,  which  gives  the  book  all  the  sacreduess  for  which  it  is 
revered  I  Besides,  if  an  oath  is  to  be  administered  to  each  person ,  in 
the  form  which  he  may  pretend,  strikes  him  with  the  greatest  awe  ; 
then  Papists  must  be  sworn  by  the  cross  ;  Mahometans  by  the  Koran, 
some  infidels,  by  the  stars  ;  some  atheistical  worldlings,  by  their 
helly ;  and  some  who  deal  in  charms  and  magical  arts,  by  the  devil. 
The  form  of  swearing  will  be  reduced  to  the  most  absurd  uncertainty 
and  fluctuation.  In  fine  the  reverence  of  an  oath  must  be  greatly 
diminished,  if  not  annihilated,  in  those  who  have  no  concern  to  observe 
the  form  which  both  reason  and  revelation  recommend  as  the  most 
proper. 

Alex.  Supposing  a  person  could  bear  witness  against  a  murderer 
in  a  country  where  kissing  the  book  is  the  established  form  of  swear- 
ing, if  he  refused  to  comply  with  this  mode,  he  would  not  be  permit- 
ted to  give  his  testimony  ;  and  for  want  of  it,  the  murdered  might  es- 
cape. In  such  a  case,  if  he  should  comply  with  the  established  form 
of  swearing  for  the  public  good,  would  not  the  guilt  lie  on  the  rigor- 
ous imposers,  not  on  him  ? 

RuF.  I  see  no  reasonable  objection  to  Mr.  Gellatly's  solution  of  this 
case.  The  precepts,  says  he,  of  the  Divine  law  are  so  linked  together 
in  one  beautiful  chain,  that  one  of  them  does  not  oppose  another.  He 
that  requires  men  to  testify  the  truth,  when  they  are  called  to  appear 
as  witnesses  in  a  court  of  justice,  requires  them  to  observe  the  way  of 


280  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

worshiping  him  appointed  in  his  word ;  and  if  they  be  desired  to  ob- 
serve the  one  precept  in  the  way  of  violating  the  other, they  may  justly 
refuse;  since  the  authority  of  God  is  stamped  on  every  precept;  and 
the  least  evil  is  not  to  he  done  that  the  greatest  good  may  follow, 
Rom.  iii,  8.  The  guilt  of  rulers,  in  commanding  their  people  to  use 
this  unwarrantable  mode  of  swearing,  is  very  great.  But  neither  are 
they  free  from  sin,  who  comply  with  their  unlawful  commands,  in  this 
or  any  other  matter.  In  such  a  case,  we  are  to  adhere  steadily  to  this 
maxim,  "  That  we  are  to  obey  God  rather  than  man,"  Acts  iv.  29. 

On  the  whole,  I  cannot  help  wondering,  how  pious  people,  who  pro- 
fess to  take  their  religion  from  the  Bible,  should  affect  to  overlook  or 
despise  the  reasoning  of  the  Seceders  on  this  head,  and  continue  to 
defend  or  excuse  so  great  an  absurdity  in  the  form  of  administering 
and  taking  an  oath. 

§  23.  Alex.  In  pursuing  this  subject,  we  have  digressed  too  long 
from  our  design  of  reviewing  iMr.  Willison's  objections  against  the 
Judicial  Testimony  of  the  Associate  Presbytery.  Let  us  now  proceed 
to  consider  this  objection  against  the  account  given  in  that  Testimony 
of  the  General  Assembly's  proceedings  in  the  cases  of  Mr.  Simson  and 
Mr  Campbell.  These  men  were  allowed  to  be  both  eminent  for  their 
talents.  1  would  be  glad,  Rufus,  to  hear  you  state  concisely  the  er- 
rors with  which  they  were  charged,  and  the  opposite  doctrines  main- 
tained by  the  Associate  Presbytery. 

RuF.  I  shall  first  state  the  errors  with  which  Mr.  John  Simson, 
Professor  of  Divinity  in  the  University  of  Glasgow,  was  charged  in 
the  process  carried  on  against  him  in  the  years  1714,  1715  and  1716. 

1.  Mr.  Simson  taught,  that,  by  the  light  of  nature  and  the  works 
of  creation  and  providence,  including  tradition,  heathens  have  an 
implicit  and  obscure  revelation  of  the  gospel;  by  which  revelation 
they  may  know,  that  there  is  a  remedy  for  sin  provided;  and  that 
they  would  have  the  benefit  of  this  remedy,  if  they  did  not  slight  and 
reject  the  obscure  discovery  and  offer  of  grace  made  to  all  without  the 
church. 

In  opposition  to  this  opinion  the  Associate  Presbytery  assert, 
that  the  light  of  nature  is  not  sufficient  to  give  that  knowledge  of 
God  and  of  his  will,  which  is  necessary  to  salvation :  and  that,  there- 
fore, they,  who  do  not  profess  the  christian  religion,  cannot  be  saved ; 
however  diligent  they  may  be  to  frame  their  lives  according  to  the 
light  of  nature  and  the  law  of  that  religion  which  they  profess,  Ephes. 
ii.  12.     1  Cor.  i.  21.     Confession  of  Faith,  chap,  i.,  §  1 

2.  Mr.  Simson  asserted,  that  there  were  means  appointed  of  God 
for  obtaining  saving  grace ;  which  means,  when  diligently  used  with 
seriousness,  sincerity  and  faith  of  being  heard,  God  hath  promised  to 
bless  with  success  ;  and  that  the  going  about  these  means  in  the  fore- 
said manner  is  not  above  the  reach  of  our  natural  ability  or  power. 

On  the  contrary,  the  Associate  Presbytery  assert,  that  man  by  his 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  281 

fall  into  a  state  of  sin,  has  wholly  lost  all  ability  of  will  to  any  spirit- 
ual good  accompanying  salvation ;  and  that,  in  his  natural  state,  be- 
ing enmity  against  God  and  averse  from  all  spiritual  good,  he  is  not  able 
by  his  own  ^strength  to  convert  himself  or  prepare  himself  thereto; 
and  consequently,  that  there  is  no  necessary  nor  certain  connection, 
either  in  the  nature  of  things  or  by  the  Divine  promise,  between  the 
morally  serious  endeavours  of  man  in  a  natural  state  and  the  obtain- 
ing of  spiritual  or  saving  grace. 

Notwithstanding  this,  they  assert,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  all  and 
every  one  to  attend  diligently  cu  Divine  ordinances,  particularly  on 
the  reading  and  hearing  of  the  word  and  on  prayer ;  these  being  the 
ordinary  means  by  which  converting  and  quickening  grace  is  com- 
municated to  such  as  are  dead  in  sins;  Rom.  iii.  10,  12.  Ephes. 
ii.  1.     John  V.  41.     Confess,  chap,  ix.,  §  3. 

3.  Mr.  Simson  maintained,  that  there  was  no  proper  covenant 
made  with  Adam,  and  that  he  was  not  a  federal  head  to  his  posteri- 
ty. He  also  maintained,  that  the  souls  of  infants,  since  the  fall,  as 
they  come  from  the  hands  of  their  Creator,  are  as  pure  and  holy,  as 
they  would  have  been  created,  supposing,  that  man  had  not  fallen  ;  and 
that  it  is  more  than  probable,  that  baptized  infants,  dying  in  infancy, 
aire  all  saved  ;  and  that,  if  God  should  deny  his  sovereign  grace  to 
any  of  the  children  of  infidels,  he  would  deal  more  severely  with  them, 
than  he  did  with  the  fallen  angels. 

On  the  contrary,  the  Associate  Presbytery  assert,  that,  when  God 
created  man,  he  entered  into  a  covenant  with  him  ;  wherein  life  was 
promised  upon  condition  of  perfect  and  personal  obedience ;  that,  in 
this  covenant,  the  first  Adam  stood  in  the  capacity  of  a  covenant 
head  and  representative  to  all  mankind  descending  from  him  by  ordi- 
nary generation  ;  that,  by  reason  of  his  breach  of  this  covenant,  they 
all  sinned  in  him  and  fell  with  him  in  his  first  transgression  ;  that  his 
gin  is  truly  and  justly  imputed  to  every  one  of  them ;  and  that  all 
infants,  descending  from  Adam  by  ordinary  generation,  on  account 
of  his  sin  imputed  to  them,  want  that  original  righteousness  where- 
with Adam  was  created  ;  and  are  by  nature  children  of  wrath.  Rom. 
V.  12,  18,  19.  1  Corinth,  xv.  22,  45,  49.  Psal.  li.  5.  Confess. 
diap.  vi.,  §  3,  5,  6. 

4.  Mr.  bimson  impugned  the  immediate  previous  Divine  concourse 
with  all  the  actions  of  the  reasonable  creature  ;  and  in  place  of  the 
usual  doctrine  of  our  reformed  divines,  affirmed,  that  God  may  de- 
termine infallibly  all  the  actions  of  reasonable  creatures  that  are  not 
above  their  natural  powers,  nor  contrary  to  their  natural  inclinations 
and  dispositions,  by  placing  them  in  such  circumstances,  by  which 
they  have  a  certain  train  of  motives  laid  before  them,  by  which  they 
may  infallibly,  yet  freely,  produce  such  a  series  of  actions,  as  he  has 
determined. 

But  the  Associate  Presbytery  assert,  that,  though  some  of  the  or- 


282  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

dinary  terms,  that  are  used  by  our  reformed  divines  on  this  subject, 
are  not  in  our  Confession  of  Faith ;  yet  the  doctrine  of  the  immedi- 
ate previous  concourse  of  God  with  all  the  actions  of  the  reasonable 
creature,  as  it  is  explained  by  these  divines,  is  plainly  held  forth 
therein  from  the  word  of  God  in  these  words  :  ^*  The  Almighty  pow- 
er, unsearchable  wisdom  and  infinite  p^oodness  of  God  so  far  manifest 
themselves  in  his  Providence,  that  it  extendeth  itself  to  the  first  fall 
and  all  other  sins  of  angels  and  men,  and  that,  not  by  a  bare  permis- 
sion ;  but  such  as  have  joined  with  it  a  most  wise  and  powerful  bound- 
ing, and  otherwise  ordering  and  governing  them,  in  a  manifold  dis- 
pensation, to  his  own  holy  ends.  Yet  so  that  the  sinfulness  thereof 
proceedeth  only  from  the  creature  and  not  from  God,  who  being 
most  holy  and  righteous,  neither  is^  nor  can  be  the  author  or  ap- 
prover of  sin."* 

5,  Mr.  Simson  maintained,  that  a  regard  to  our  own  happiness,  or 
the  prospect  of  eternal  blessedness  in  the  enjoyment  of  God  in  heaven, 
ought  to  be  our  chief  motive  in  serving  the  Lord  on  earth;  and  that 
our  glorifying  God  being  the  means,  is  subordinate  to  our  enjoyment 
of  him  for  ever ;  which,  said  hC;,  is  our  ultimate  end. 

But  the  Associate  Presbytery  assert,  that  the  principal  motive  of 
true  love  to  God  is  not  our  own  happiness  or  self-interest,  but  the 
glorious  perfections  of  his  nature,  as  they  are  manifested  in  Imman- 
uel  God  with  us ;  and  that  the  instinct  of  the  new  nature  with  which 
the  Lord  endues  all  his  people  in  regeneration,  makes  them,  by  the 
further  influence  of  grace,  desire  to  serve  God  for  himself  and  his  su- 
pereminent  excellencies,  and  not  merely,  or  chiefly,  for  the  prospect 
of  their  own  happiness.  1  Cor.  x.  3L  Isai.  xlii.  8.  Hence  our 
glorifying  God  as  our  chief  end  is  put  before  our  enjoyment  of  him 
in  the  answer  to  the  first  question  in  our  catechisms. 

6.  Mr.  Simson  maintained,  that  there  will  be  no  sinning  in  hell  af- 
ter the  last  judgment. 

The  Associate  Presbytery,  on  the  contrary,  assert,  that  sin  is  the 
rational  creature's  want  of  conformity  to  the  law  of  God  ;  and  that, 

*  Confess,  chap.  v.  sect.  4.  The  doctrine  of  our  reformed  divines,  is.  That  the 
rational  creature  is  to  be  considered  as  an  efficient  cause  of  its  own  actions  ;  and 
that  yet,  being-  a  second  cause,  it  acts  dependently  on  the  Fird  Came:  each  of 
these  causes  producing  the  same  action  as  a  total  cause  in  its  own  order.  This 
appears  from  such  places  of  Scripture  as  teach,  that  God  not  only  2:ives  and  pre- 
serves the  power  of  acting,  but  concurs  with  the  creature  by  an  immediate,  pre- 
vious, predetermining  influence,  to  the  production  of  the  action  ;  the  creature 
being  represented  as  not  only  existing  or  being,  but  as  moving  in  or  by  God, 
Acts  xvii.  28.  As,  in  its  free  actions,  moved  and  actuated  by  God,  as  tools' in  the 
band  of  aworkman,  Isai.  x.  15.  This  doctrine  appears  from  the  necessary,  absolute 
dependence  of  the  creature  on  God  in  acting  as  well  as  in  existing.  God  is  the 
Author  of  all  real  being,  and  consequently  of  whatever  real  being  is  in  the  actions 
of  reasonable  creatures;  but  he  neither  is  nor  can  be  the  Anthor  of  the  sinful- 
ness of  their  actions ;  which  sinfulness,  being  a  privation  or  want  of  conformity 
to  the  law  of  God,  is  imputable  to  the  rational  creature  only,  as  necessarily  un- 
der the  obligation  of  that  law. 


ALEXANDER  AND   RUFUS.  283 

therefore,  as  the  natures  of  the  damned  in  hell  were  never  renewed, 
they  can  never  cease  from  sinning,  while  they  can  have  no  manner  of 
conformity  to  the  law  of  God  ;  and,  while  from  their  corrupt  natures 
must  necessarily  flow  the  highest  enmity  against  the  justice  and  holi- 
ness of  God  in  punishing  them  ;  which  is  expressed  in  the  Scripture 
by  gnashing  of  teeth ;  so  that  both  sinning  and  suffering  will  be 
their  misery  through  eternity.     Larg.  Cat.,  quest.  24  and  162. 

7.  The  errors  which  I  have  now  mentioned  were  those  with  which 
Mr.  Simson  was  charged  with  in  the  first  process  against  him.  But  in 
another  process,  which  was  begun  in  the  year  1726,  and  concluded 
in  the  year  1729,  it  was  found,  that  he  had  taught  other  gross  and 
dangerous  errors  :  such  as.  That  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  not  neces- 
sarily existent ;  that  the  term  necessary  existence  is  impertinent  in 
speaking  of  the  Trinity ;  that  it  is  not  to  be  said,  that  the  three  per- 
sons of  the  Trinity  are  numerically  one  in  substance  or  essence ; 
that  the  terms  necessary  existence,  Supreme  Deity,  and  the  title 
of  the  only  true  God,  may  be  taken  in  a  sense,  that  includes  the 
personal  property  of  the  Father,  and  so  do  not  belong  to  the  Son. 

On  the  contrary,  the  Associate  Presbytery  assert,  that  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  by  ineffable,  incomprehensible 
and  necessary  generation,  is  Jehovah  the  most  high  God,  self-existent, 
and  independent;  that  he  is  necessarily  existent ;  that  the  terms  ne- 
cessary existence.  Supreme  Deity,  and  the  title  of  the  only  true 
God,  cannot  be  taken  in  a  sense  that  includes  the  personal  property 
of  the  Father;  but  belong  to  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  equally  with 
the  Father ;  and  that  the  three  persons  of  the  adorable  Trinity  are 
numerically  one  in  substance  or  essence,  equal  in  power  and  glory. 
John,  i.  1,  2,  3— X.  30.  1  John  v.  20.  Rom.  ix.  5.  Revel,  i.  8. 
Confess,  chap,  viii.,  §2.     Larg,  Cat.,  ques.  9. 

8.  Mr.  Simson  maintained,  that  reason,  as  it  is  taken  for  evident 
propositions  naturally  revealed,  is  the  principle  or  foundation  of  The- 
ology ;  and  that  nothing  is  to  be  admitted  in  religion,  but  what  is 
agreeable  to  reason,  and  determined  by  reason  to  be  so. 

The  Associate  Presbytery  consider  these  assertions  as  exalting 
reason  above  Divine  revelation  ;  and  as  contrary  to  the  answer  to  the 
second  question  of  the  Shorter  Catechism,  and  to  the  doctrine  of  our 
Confession,  namely,  that  the  Supreme  Judge,  by  which  all  controver- 
sies of  religion  are  to  be  determined,  and  all  decrees  of  councils, 
opinions  of  eminent  writers,  doctrines  of  men,  and  private  spirits  are 
to  be  examined,  and  in  whose  sentence  we  are  to  rest ;  can  be  no 
other  than  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the  Sriptures.*  The  Asso- 
ciate Presbytery  account  these  tenets,  concerning  man's  reason,  the 
very  spring  of  the  other  dangerous  errors  vented  and  taught  by 
him.     "  Mr.  Simson,''  say  they,  "having  once  set  reason  in  the  chair, 

*  Confess,  chap,  i.,  §  10. 


284  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

and  exalted  it  to  be  judge  in  principles  of  faith,  it  is  no  wonder, 
that  he  rejected  the  testimony  of  God,  in  his  own  word,  concerning 
the  covenant  headship  and  representation  of  the  first  Adam,  and  the 
many  sacred  truths  connected  with  that  article ;  and  that  he  main- 
tained the  other  errors  with  which  he  was  charged  in  the  first  pro- 
cess. Hence,  too,  he  was  led,  at  length,  to  deny  the  Supreme  Deity 
and  necessary  existence  of  him,  whose  name  is  the  Wonderful, 
Counsellor,  the  Mighty  God,  the  Everlasting  Father,  the  Prince  of 
Peace." 

I  may  now  give  you  some  account  of  the  opinions  against  which  the 
Associate  Presbytery  bear  testimony,  as  having  been  maintained  and 
taught  by  Archibald  Campbell,  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  in 
the  University  of  St.  Andrews,  in  his  publications,  and  in  the  process 
against  him  before  the  General  Assembly  in  1136. 

1.  In  his  Inquiry  into  the  original  of  moral  virtue,  he  asserted, 
that  God's  interests  are  not  in  all  respects  independent  of  us  ;  and 
that  virtue  does  not  depend  on  the  arbitrary  will  of  any  being,  but 
flows  from  the  essential  properties  and  nature  of  things. 

The  Associate  Presbytery  assert,  on  the  contrary.  That  God  has  all 
life,  glory,  goodness  in  and  of  himself ;  that  he  is  alone  in  and  to  him- 
self all-sufficient,  not  standing  in  need  of  any  creature,  nor  deriving 
any  glory  from  them ;  but  only  manifesting  his  own  glory  in,  by,  unto 
and  upon  them  ;  that  he  has  sovereign  dominion  over  them,  to  do  by 
them,  for  them,  or  upon  them,  whatsoever  himself  pleaseth  ;  that  any 
rewards  that  he  has  promised  to  any  of  his  creatures,  are  free  and 
voluntary  ;  that,  in  all  their  obedience,  worship  and  service,  they  can 
neither  profit  him,  nor  be  any  way  advantageous  to  him ;  that  God 
himself,  in  the  wise  purposes  and  counsel  of  his  will,  laid  down  the 
whole  plan  of  the  nature  and  relation  of  things,  which  he  freely 
brings  forth  in  his  works  of  creation,  providence  and  redemption  ; 
that,  though  the  precepts  of  the  moral  law  be  eternal  and  immutable, 
the  holiness  of  the  nature  being  such,  that  it  cannot  be  his  will  thai 
his  creatures  should  do  otherwise  ;  yet,  the  Sciptures  also  assert,  that 
God  is  our  Lawgiver ;  that  he  has  an  absolute  sov^ereignty  and  au- 
thority over  us  ;  and,  consequently,  that  nothing  can  be  a  law  to  us 
but  by  his  enacting  it ;  and  that  what  he  enacts  must  be  a  law  to  us, 
whether  it  be  a  moral  precept,  or  a  thing  in  its  own  nature  indifl"erent ; 
as  is  evident,  from  the  positive  precept  given  to  Adam  at  his  crea- 
tion, and  from  other  positive  commands,  both  under  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments.  * 

*  Although,  says  the  Associate  Presbytery,  these  positive  commands  were  all 
■wise  and  good,  yet  who  can  say,  that  God  was  necessarily  obliged  by  his  own  na- 
ture to  enact  them ;  or  that  he  could  not  possibly  have  done  otherwise  ?  It  is 
therefore  grossly  erroneous  to  set  up  the  nature  and  relation  of  things  as  a  law 
above  God  himself ;  and  to  maintain  that  moral  good  and  evil  flow  from  the  es- 
sential properties  and  nature  of  things;  or,  that  moral  good  and  evil  do  not  flow 
only  from  the  holiness  of  God's  nature,  together  with  his  sovereign  authority  aiid 
will  manifested  in  his  law. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  285 

2.  Mr.  Campbell  also  affirmed,  that  self-interest  or  pleasure  is  the 
only  standard  by  which  we  can  judge  of  the  virtue,  that  is,  the  value 
or  goodness,  of  any  action  whatsoever ;  that  virtue  and  utility  are 
two  words  signifying  the  same  thing ;  that  the  intrinsic  goodness  or 
rectitude  of  moral  virtue,  lies  directly  in  the  fitness  of  it  to  the  self-love 
and  happiness  of  mankind  ;  and  that  actions  are  virtuous  as  they  pro- 
mote self-interest. 

The  Associate  Presbytery,  on  the  contrary,  maintain,  that  the  law 
or  revealed  will  of  God  is  the  adequate  and  only  standard  by  which 
the  goodness  of  actions  is  to  be  tried.  They  teach,  that  the  moral 
goodness  of  our  actions  consists  in  their  being  done  from  a  respect  to 
the  authority  of  God  the  Lawgiver,  and  by  Faith  in  Christ ;  and  that 
nothing  is  more  contradictory  to  the  whole  word  of  God,  than  to  as- 
sert that  the  goodness  of  our  love  to  God  and  his  Son  Jesus  Christ, 
or  of  any  act  of  obedience,  consists  directly  in  its  fitness  to  promote 
our  personal  interest.  Isai.  viii.  20.  Psal.  cxix.  4,  5,  9.  1  Sam. 
XV.  22.  1  John  iii.  4.  Psal.  xl.  8.  John  xv.  4,  5.  Confess,  chap. 
i.,  §  2— chap,  xvi.,  §  1,  2. 

3.  Mr,  Campbell  taught,  as  Mr.  Simson  had  done,  that  the  sole 
and  universal  motive  to  virtuous  actions  is  self-love,  interest  or  plea- 
sure ;  that  self-love  is  the  first  spring  in  every  rational  mind,  that 
awakens  her  powers,  begins  her  motions,  and  carries  her  on  to  action  ; 
and  that  self-love,  as  it  exerts  itself  in  the  desire  of  universal,  unlimit- 
ed esteem,  is  the  commanding  motive  that  determines  us  to  the  pur- 
suit of  virtue. 

These  positions,  the  Associate  Presbytery  condemn,  as  directly  con- 
trary to  the  word  of  God  :  which  teaches,  that  all  our  religious  ac- 
tions must  proceed  from  a  new  nature,  and  from  faith  in  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  from  a  holy  regard  and  love  to  God  ;  and  not  from 
eelf-love  or  self-interest,  as  their  first  spring  or  principle.  Ezek.  xxxvi, 
26,  2t.  John  xv.  4,  5.  Math.  xxii.  3t,  39  ;  and  that  our  chief  or 
ultimate  end  ought  not  to  be  the  advancement  of  our  self-interest,  but 
the  advancement  of  God's  declarative  glory.  Our  Lord  Jesus,  whose 
example  we  are  to  imitate,  pleased  not  himself,  sought  not  his  own 
will  or  glory,  but  the  will  and  glory  of  the  Father  who  sent  him. 
To  be  lovers  of  our  own  selves,  that  is,  to  love  ourselves  inordinately, 
is  one  of  the  blackest  crimes.  Rom.  xv.  1,  3.  John  v.  30 — vii.  18. 
2  Tim.  iii.  2.  It  is  manifestly  an  inordinate  self-love,  to  make  our 
self-interest  or  happiness  the  chief  motive  of  our  love  to  God  ;  to  love 
him  not  for  himself,  but  for  ourselves.  This  is  to  prefer  ourselves  to 
our  Maker,  and  to  love  ourselves  more  than  the  Creator  !  That  obe- 
dience to  God  which  is  principally  influenced  by  self-interest  is  legal, 
mercenary  and  servile,  or  such  as  men  in  their  natural  state  may  at- 
tain. The  opinion  which  makes  self-love  or  regard  to  our  own  inter- 
est the  principal  motive  to  virtuous  actions,  has  a  direct  tendency  to 
destroy  the  specific  difference  between  common  and  saving  grace  j  an 
error  of  the  Ai-minians,  of  Mr.  Baxter  and  others. 


286  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS 

It  is  true,  the  chief  end  of  God,  in  all  his  works,  is  his  declarative 
glory  :  for  "  the  Lord  hath  made  all  things  for  himself;"  Pro  v.  xvi.  4. 
But  Mr.  Campbell  argued  most  absurdly  and  impiously,  that  in  act- 
ing from  self-interest,  we  imitate  God.  This  was  just  the  aim  of  Sa- 
tan's first  temptation,  "  Ye  shall  be  as  gods."*  So  that  this  scheme 
teaches  men  to  exalt  themselves  to  an  equality  with  God. 

4.  Mr.  Campbell,  in  his  discourse  proving,  that  the  apostles  were 
no  enthusiasts,  affirms,  that  "  many  in  the  world  look  upon  those  mani- 
festations which,  they  think,  they  have  of  the  nature  and  excellencies 
of  God,  as  supernaturally  communicated  to  their  minds ;  and  take 
those  inward  ravishments  they  fell,  upon  such  pretended  revelations, 
to  be  all  Divine  joys  poured  in  upon  them  by  the  immediate  hand  of 
God  himself;  that  all  such  events,"  making  no  exception  of  any,  but 
such  as  are  of  the  extraordinary  and  miraculous  kind,  "  may  possibly 
have  come  about  in  a  natural  course  and  series  of  things,  without  any 
more  interposing  of  the  Divinity  than  there  is,  when  a  man  opens  his 
eyes  and  beholds  the  Sun  in  its  glory  at  noon  ;  and  that  an  extrava- 
gant conceit  of  being  peculiarly  blessed  with  such  supernatural  com- 
munications from  Heaven,  makes  up  the  very  life  and  soul  of  enthu- 
siasm." Making  human  reason,  in  its  present  state,  the  only  guide 
to  our  devotions,  Mr.  Campbell  describes  the  enthusiast  to  be  one 
"  who,  in  the  course  of  his  devotion,  keeps  not  within  the  compass  of 
reason,  consulting  the  throne  of  grace,  laying  his  matters  before  the 
Lord,  and  imploring  his  light  and  direction.  These,  and  like  ex- 
pres  sions,"  says  he,  ''  ai^e  tei^ms  of  art  much  used  by  enthusiasts." 

On  the  contrary,  the  Associate  Presbytery  declare  and  assert,  that 
the  Holy  Scriptures  teach  the  absolute  necessity  of  a  supernatural 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  for  the  renovation  of  our  natures,  and  for 
manifesting  to  us  in  a  saving  manner,  the  glorious  excellencies  of  God 
in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ ;  that,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  this 
work  of  the  Spirit  is  common  to  all  that  are  effectually  called,  every 
one  of  them  being  peculiarly  blessed  with  it;  2  Corinth,  iv.  6 — v.  It 
Ephes.  i.  18,  19.  Confess,  chap,  x.,  §  1  ;  that  the  will  of  God  reveal- 
ed in  his  word,  and  not  our  own  depraved  reason,  is  that  rule,  within 
the  compass  of  which  we  are  to  keep  in  our  devotion  ;  Isai.  viii.  20. 
Confess,  chap,  i.,  §  1,  2 — xvi.,  §  1  ;  that,  according  to  the  Scriptures, 
an  actual  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  necessary  to  impress  the 
truths  of  God  upon  our  mind,  and  to  enable  us  to  walk  with  God  in 
all  the  duties  of  holy  obedience;  Rom.  viii.  9,  26.  Philip,  ii.  13. 
John  xvi.  t,  8,  9,  14.  Confess,  chap.,  xvi.  §  1,  3,  5,  t  ;  that  it  is  our 
duty,  not  to  lean  on  our  own  understanding  or  reason,  but  to  consult 
the  throne  of  grace,  to  lay  all  our  matters  before  the  Lord,  and  to  im- 
plore his  light  and  direction.  Prov.  iii.  5,  6.  Philip,  iv.  6.  Heb. 
iv.  16. 

*  Gen.  iii.  5.    We  are  to  imitate  God,  by  having  tliat  for  onr  chief  end  which  is 
his  end  in  all  his  works,  namely,  the  Divine  glory. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  28T 

5.  Mr.  Campbell,  in  his  writings,  likewise  affirmed  that  men,  with. 
out  revelation,  cannot  by  their  natural  powers  find  out,  that  there  is 
a  God. 

The  Associate  Presbytery,  on  the  contrary,  assert,  that  the  light  of 
nature  and  the  works  of  creation  and  providence,  without  the  aid  of 
tradition  or  revelation,  show  that  there  is  a  God  ;  who  hath  lordship 
and  sovereignty  over  all ;  as  also,  that  thereby  his  wisdom,  power  and 
goodness  are  so  far  manifested,  that  all  men  are  left  inexcusable  :  and 
they  reject  and  condemn  all  contrary  principles,  as  having  a  tendency 
to  darken  and  render  doubtful  the  truth  of  natural  religion  ;  Kom.  i. 
19,  20,  32 — ii.  12, 14,  15.     Confess,  chap,  xxi.,  §  1,  and  chap,  i.,  1. 

6.  Mr.  Campbell,  in  his  writings  asserted,  that  the  laws  of  nature, 
in  themselves,  are  a  certain  and  sufficient  rule  to  direct  rational  minds 
to  happiness  ;  and  that  our  observation  of  these  laws  is  the  great 
mean  or  instrument  of  our  real  and  lasting  felicity. 

On  the  contrary,  the  Associate  Presbytery  assert,  that  the  w^ord 
of  God  is  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  obedience  ;  that  men  cannot  be 
accepted  in  God's  sight,  nor  be  entitled  to  future  and  lasting  felicity, 
by  framing  their  lives  according  to  the  law  of  nature  ;  and  that, 
though  holiness  be  absolutely  necessary  to  make  us  meet  for  commun- 
ion with  God,  both  in  grace  here  and  in  glory  hereafter  ;  yet,  it  is  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  or  his  obedience  and  satisfaction  imputed  to 
us  and  received  by  faith  of  God's  operation,  that  is  the  great  condi- 
tional mean  of  our  blessedness  begun  in  time  and  consummated  in 
heaven.  Gal.  iii.  21,  22.  Acts  x.  43— xvi.  31.  Rom.  iii.  22  to 
28.     Philip,  iii.   T,  8,  9.     Confess.,  chap,  vii.,  §  3— x.,  §  4— xi.,  §  1. 

7.  Mr.  Campbell,  in  his  writings,  taught,  that  the  apostles  do  not 
seem  to  have  had  any  notion  of  our  Saviour's  Divinity,  at  the  time  of 
his  crucifixion  ;  that  the  apostles  being  violently  possessed  in  favor  of 
a  worldly  kingdom,  expected  this  and  this  only  from  him  ;  that  the 
apostles,  in  the  interval  between  Christ's  death  and  his  resurrection, 
were  greatly  offended  at  him  in  their  hearts,  as  being,  in  their  opinion, 
a  downright  cheat  and  deceiver,  who  had  once  flattered  them  with 
mighty  hopes,  but  now  had  left  them  in  all  the  agonies  of  shame  and 
disappointment ;  and  that  they  did  not  apprehend  him  under  that 
character  in  which  he  is  represented  to  us  by  the  apostle  John,  in  the 
first  chapter  of  his  gospel,  and  by  Paul,  in  his  epistles,  before  they  be- 
gan their  public  ministry. 

On  the  contrary,  the  Associate  Presbytery  assert,  that  all  such 
as  have  saving  faith,  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  as  the  Christ  the  Son 
of  God  ;  and  that  the  apostles  and  disciples  of  our  Lord,  in  the  days 
of  his  humiliation,  acknowledged,  believed  in,  and  worshiped  their 
Lord  and  Master  as  the  true  promised  Messiah,  the  Son  of  the  living 
God,  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father  ;  and  expected  from  him  spirtiual 
and  eternal  life  and  salvation ;  that  none  who  have  truly  believed  in 
the  Lord  Jesus  can  fall  away,  either  totally  or  finally,  from  a  state  of 


288  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

grace  ;  that  the  faith  of  the  apostles  and  disciples  of  our  Lord  did  not 
f^il  in  the  interval  of  time  between  his  death  and  resurrection  ;  and 
that,  therefore,  whatever  clouds  and  doubts  they  were  under  they 
never  were  so  far  left  to  themselves,  as  to  conclude,  that  their  Lord 
and  Master  was  a  downright  deciever  and  impostor.  And  they  reject 
and  condemn  the  contrary  assertions  of  Mr.  Campbell.  John  i.  14. 
Matth.  xvi.  16,  11.  John  vi.  68,  69— xiv.  1— xx.  28— xxi.  11.  Con- 
fess., chap,  viii.,  §  2,  6 — xvii.,  §  1 — xxv.,  §  4,  5. 

§  24.  Alex.  Mr.  Willison  charges  the  Associate  Presbytery  with 
falsehood,  in  representing  the  General  Assembly  as  having  dismissed 
professor  Simson,  without  any  censure  or  express  testimony  against 
his  errors. 

RuF.  I  have  already  intimated,  that  there  were  two  processes 
against  Mr.  Simson  for  error  :  one,  which  was  issued  in  the  year  1111, 
and  another,  in  the  year  1729.  Now  Mr.  Willison  ought  to  have  ob- 
served, that  this  expression  of  the  Associate  Presbytery,  in  their  ac- 
knowledgment of  sins,  "  That  the  General  Assembly  dismissed  the  pro- 
cess without  any  censure,"  regards  the  former  process  only  ;  and 
that  a  distinct  article  follows  in  that  acknowledgment  with  respect  to 
the  latter. 

Concerning  the  first  process,  the  Associate  Presbytery  say,  in  the 
Judicial  Testimony,  the  Assembly,  instead  of  condemning  particularly 
the  errors  owned  by  Mr.  Simson,  and  inflicting  due  censure  upon 
him,  did  not  so  much  as  rebuke  him.  This  being  the  fact,  the  pres- 
bytery might  justly  say,  as  they  do  in  their  acknowledgment  of  sins, 
that  the  first  process  was  dismissed  without  any  censure  inflicted  upon 
Mr.'  Simson ;  yea,  without  any  particular  express  testimony  against 
his  gross  and  dangerous  errors.  Mr.  Willison  himself  laments  the 
way  in  which  this  process  in  the  year  1*7 It  was  issued  by  the  Assem- 
bly, and  owns  that,  "as  a  just  rebuke  upon  the  Assembly  for  their 
lenity,  Mr.  Simson  persisted  in  his  unsound  doctrine."  "Would  to 
God,"  says  he,  in  another  place,  "  that  our  Assembly  had  given  plain 
and  faithful  warning  against  professor  Simson 's  and  professor  Camp- 
bell's errors."* 

Alex.  Mr.  Willison  finds  fault  with  the  Associate  Presl\ytery,  be- 
cause they  might  have  contented  themselves  with  saying,  (as  he  him- 
self has  said,)  that  the  Assembly's  censure  of  Mr.  Simson  was  too 
lenient,  and  that  their  warning  against  these  errors  was  not  sufficient- 
ly plain  and  faithful.  Is  not  the  fault  of  the  Assembly  in  this  matter, 
exaggerated  by  the  Associate  Presbytery  ? 

RuF.  In  order  to  do  justice  to  this  article  of  the  Associate  Presby- 
tery's representation,  it  is  necessary  to  attend  to  the  act  of  the  General 
Assembly  in  the  year  1111,  in  which  the  first  process  against  Mr. 
Simson  was  issued,  and  which  runs  in  the  following  terms  :  '*  There- 

*  Impartial  Testimony,  pagefi  88  and  154. 


ALEXANDER   AND  RUFUS.  289 

fore,  although  Professor  Simson  does  declare  his  adherence  to  our  Con- 
fession of  Faith  and  the  doctrine  contained  therein  as  his  judgement, 
and  disowns  the  errors  opposite  thereto,  wherewith  he  was  charged ; 
yet  considering  that  by  his  printed  answers  he  hath  given  offence ; 
and  that  it  is  judged,  that  therein  he  has  vented  some  opinions  not 
necessary  to  be  taught  in  Divinity ; — and  for  answering  more  satis- 
fyingly  (as  he  supposes)  the  cavils  and  objections  of  adversaries,  he 
hath  adopted  some  hypotheses  different  from  what  are  commonly  used 
among  orthodox  divines,  that  are  not  evidently  founded  on  the 
Scripture,  and  tend  to  attribute  too  much  to  natural  reason  and  the 
power  of  corrupt  nature ;  therefore,  they  prohibit  and  discharge  the 
said  Mr.  Simson  to  use  such  expressions,  or  to  teach,  preach,  or 
otherwise  vent,  such  opinions,  propositions,  or  hypotheses  as  the 
foresaid." 

Now,  to  use  the  words  of  a  judicious  writer,*  "  What  has  the  As- 
sembly said  in  this  act  ?  They  have  even  said,  that  it  is  judged, 
that  Mr.  Simson  has  done  so  and  so  :  and  no  doubt  some,  yea  many 
did  judge,  that  Mr.  Simson  had  vented  himself  in  the  above  men- 
tioned manner ;  but  4he  Assembly  had  never  said,  that  they  them- 
selves had  either  judged  or  found,  that  by  the  opinions  which  he  was 
proved  to  have  taught,  the  truths  of  God,  plainly  held  forth  from  his 
word  in  our  Confession  of  Faith,  were  subverted."  Nay,  this  was 
so  far  from  being  the  case,  that  in  the  year  1729,  when  the  Assembly's 
committee  exhibited  a  libel  against  Mr.  Simson  for  continuing  to 
teach  the  same  gross  errors,  he  pleaded  in  his  own  defence,  "  That  the 
propositions  contained  in  the  said  libels,  and  which  were  taken  out  of 
his  own  printed  defences,  were  none  of  them  found  by  the  Assembly 
in  niY,  to  be  contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  and  our  Confession  of 
Faith,  "t 

If  Mr.  Simson  had  ground  for  this  plea,  (and  it  seems  to  have  been 
admitted  that  he  had,  since  no  further  notice  was  taken  of  the  "com- 
mittee's libel,)  how  could  the  Assembly  be  said  to  have  censured  him, 
or  expressly  testified  against  his  errors  ? 

With  regard  to  the  second  process  against  Mr.  Simson,  for  teach- 
ing that  the  title  of  the  3Iost  High  God  is  not  applicable  to  the  Son 
in  the  same  sense  in  which  it  is  given  to  the  Father,  and  for  denying 
that  the  three  persons  of  the  adorable  Trinity  are  numerically  one  in 
substance  or  essence ;  it  was  not  dismissed  altogether  without  cen- 
sure. But  the  Associate  Presbytery  lament,  that  the  censure  inflicted, 
which  was  suspension  from  teaching  and  preaching,  was  no  way  ade- 
quate to  the  offence  he  had  given  by  such  gross  blasphemy.  With 
regard  to  both  the  first  and  second  process,  against  Mr.  Simson,  the 
Associate  Presbytery  consider  it  as  a  ground  of  mourning,  that  the 

*  Mr.  Wilson's  Continuation  of  Ms  Defence,  pages  381  and  382. 

t  Ibid.,  chap,  iii.,  sect.  1,  page  382. 
19 


230  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

Assembly  gave  no  particular  and  express  testimony  to  the  truth,  in 
terms  directly  opposite  to  those  in  which  he  expressed  his  pernicious 
errors.  And  they  insist,  that  the  reason  which  was  given  for  this 
omission  in  open  court,  namely,  that  they  were  not  to  add  new  articles 
to  our  Confession  of  Faith,  made  the  matter  worse  ;  as  it  implied  that, 
in  the  Assembly's  judgment,  the  truth  directly  opposite  to  Mr.  Sim- 
son's  erroneous  propositions  is  not  contained  in  the  Confession.  For, 
there  could  be  no  adding  to  the  Confession  by  a  particular  and  express 
declaration  of  what  is  contained  in  it.*  And  if  the  judicatories  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  or  that  church,  as  represented  by  her  judicato- 
ries, allowed,  that  the  several  Divine  truths  directly  opposite  to  Mr. 
Simson's  errors,  were  not  contained  in  that  confession  ;  then,  her 
professed  adherence  to  that  confession  "  ceased  to  be  any  sufficient 
evidence  of  her  soundness  in  the  faith"  with  regard  to  these  truths. 
Here,  I  suppose,  it  is  understood,  that  by  an  express  and  particular 
testimony  against  Mr.  Simson's  pernicious  errors,  the  Associate  Pres- 
bytery meant  the  Assembly's  finding  and  declaring  these  erroneous 
propositions,  as  they  stood  in  Mr.  Simson's  defences,  to  be  contrary 
to  the  word  of  God  and  the  Confession  of  Faith.  If  this  was  not 
done  by  the  Assembly,  there  was  not,  in  the  sense  of  the  Associate 
Presbytery,  any  express  or  particular  testimony  given  against  these 
errors.  But  Mr.  Willison  himself  does  not  pretend,  that  this  was 
done  in  the  second  process  against  Mr.  Simson ;  and  much  less  in 
the  first. 

Alex.  I  should  think  that  the  Assembly's  disapprobation  of  the 
expressions,  alleged  in  the  first  process,  to  have  been  used  by  Mr. 
Simson,  and  their  discharging  him  to  use  them  afterwards,  may  be 
considered  as  some  degree  of  censure ;  and  therefore,  the  Associate 
Presbytery  exaggerates  the  lenity  of  the  Assembly  too  much,  in  say- 
ing, that  the  process  was  dismissed  without  any  censure  inflicted 
on  him. 

RuF.  It  is  evident,  that  the  Associate  Presbytery  did  not  mean  to 
deny  or  conceal  the  sentence  of  the  Assembly  :  they  have  given  the 
whole  of  it  in  their  Declaration  and  Testimony ;  agreeably  to  which 
larger  account,  we  are  to  understand  what  relates  to  the  same  subject 
in  their  acknowledgment  of  sins.  It  is  evident,  that  the  charge  in  the 
first  process  against  Mr.  Simson,  of  his  teaching  what  was  contrary  to 
the  word  of  God  and  the  Confession  of  Faith,  was  not  admitted  by 
the  Assembly;  nor  were  his  expressions  disapproved  under  that 
consideration.  It  is  unreasonable  to  call  every  disapprobation 
church  censure ;  and  particularly  a  disapprobation  in  such  lenient  and 
general  terms  as  those  which  the  Assembly  used  on  this  occasion. 

Alex,  the  Associate  Presbytery,  says  Mr.  Willison,  have  cast  slan- 
der on  the  mother  church  by  alleging,  in  their  Act  and  Testimony, 

*  Wilson's  Defence  of  Reformation  Principles,  pages  81,  83. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  291 

or  in  some  other  papers  emitted  or  adopted  by  them,  "  That  the  judi- 
catories have  overturned  the  foundation  of  the  doctrine  and  govern- 
ment of  Christ's  church  ;  that  they  have  subverted  both  her  doctrine 
and  worship  ;  and  that  they  have  done  what  in  them  lay  to  pull  th« 
crown  from  Christ's  head  ;  that  they  have  refused  to  give  him  the 
glory  of  his  Supreme  Deity  ;  and  involved  themselves  in  the  guilt 
of  denying  the  Son  of  God,  which  is  one  special  mark  of  Anti- 
Christ  "* 

RuF.  Mr  Willison  ought  to  have  signijBed,  that  these  expressions 
are  not  taken  from  the  Declaration  and  Testimony,  or  any  other  judi- 
cial deed  of  the  Associate  Presbytery,  but  from  private  papers  of  ac- 
cession to  the  Associate  Presbytery  which  had  been  published  along 
with  their  Testimony. f  Though  an  ecclesiastical  body  may  be  justly 
blameed  for  neglecting  to  censure  errors  or  slanders  contained  in  the 
writings  of  its  members  ;  yet  it  is  not  so  accountable  for  the  accuracy 
of  such  writings,  as  for  that  of  their  own  judicial  deeds.  But  was 
there  not  reason  to  say,  that  the  foundations  of  sound  doctrine  were 
greatly  shaken  by  the  procedure  of  the  judicatories,  when  they  refused 
to  pass  due  censure  on  account  of  fundamental  errors,  which  were  suf- 
ficiently proved  before  them  ?  "  The  Son  of  God,"  as  the  judicioui 
Mr.  Boston  said,  "  came  to  the  bar  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  demanding  justice  against  a  blasphemer,  but  did 
not  obtain  it. " 

Was  not  the  worship  of  the  church  corrupted  by  neglecting  the  due 
censure  of  such  fundamental  errors  as  tended  to  rob  the  Son  of  God, 
the  object  of  christian  worship,  of  his  essential  glory  ?  And  was 
there  not  too  much  ground  to  say,  that  these  judicatories,  by  a  long 
habitual  course  of  arbitrary  and  tyrannical  proceedings  had  been  over- 
turning the  foundations  of  church  government  ?  so  it  is  said  on  ac- 
count of  the  oppression  of  rulers,  That  "  all  the  foundations  of  the 
earth  are  gone  out  of  their  place."  Psalm  Ixxxii.  5. 

The  sense  of  the  passage  in  the  paper  to  which  Mr.  Willison  refers 
cannot  well  be  understood  from  his  partial  quotation.  "  The  judica- 
tories," says  that  paper,  "  have  been  doing  what  in  them  lay  to  pull 
the  crown  off  Christ's  head,  refusing  to  give  him  the  glory  due  to  his 
name,  to  give  him  the  glory  of  his  supreme  Deity  by  resenting  suita- 
bly the  blasphemous  denial  of  some ;  and,  instead  thereof,  have  evea 
kept  the  blasphemer  in  full  communion  with  the  church  ;  refusing  all 
calls  to  lay  to  heart  or  acknowledge  their  sin  in  this  matter." 

When  Mr.  Willison  says,  that  the  Assembly  in  1734,  "  did  all  that 
was  in  their  power  to  satisfy  the  friends  of  reformation  ; " — the  expres- 
sion cannot  be  understood  absolutely  :  for  the  Assembly,  if  they  had 
acted  faithfully,  as  a  court  of  Christ's  free  and  independent  kingdom, 

*  Imp.  Test.,  pages  169, 170. 

tSee  the  Display  of  the  Secession  Testimony,  in  the  note  at  the  foot  of  page  61. 


292  ALEXANDER  AND  EUFUS. 

miglit  liave  granted  all  that  Mr.   Erskine  and  his  protesting  brethren 
craved;  as  they  asked  nothing  but  what  was  agreeable  to  the  covenant- 
ed principles  and  constitution  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  Scotland. 
But  Mr.  Willison  meant,  that  the  majority  of  that  Assembly  exerted 
themselves  as  much  in  opposing  some  corruptions,  as  their  degenerate 
condition  admitted;    for,  says  he,  "there  was,  in  that  Assembly,  a 
mighty  opposition  of  great  men, "     And  why  may  not  the  expression 
in  the  private  paper  before  mentioned,  namely,  "  that  the  judicatories 
did  what  in  them  lay  to  pull  the  crown  from  Christ's  head,"  be  under- 
stood as  meaning,  that,  when  the  Assembly  were  engaged  in  the  at- 
tempt of  screening  Mr.   Simson  from  the  censure  due  to  him  for  the 
blasphemous  doctrine,  which  he  was  proved  to  have  taught  against 
the  divinity  of  Christ,  they  did  as  much  to  pull  the  crown  of  Divine 
Glory  from  his  head,  as  they  could  do,  without  openly  giving  up  their 
pretensions  to  represent  a  church  professing  adherence  to  the  Scrip- 
tures and  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  or  without  renouncing 
their  claim  to  the  emoluments  connected  with  that  profession  by  the 
laws  of  the  land  ?     Besides,  to  say,  that  it  was  in  their  power  to  do 
more  hurt  to  the  church,  in  any  other  sense,  would  not  accord  with  a 
due  acknowledgment  of  the  particular  and  infallible  providence  of  God 
as  exercised  about  all  persons  and  things,  and  especially  about  all  the 
concerns  of  the  church. 

Alex.  Mr.  Willison  charges  the  Associate  Presbytery  with  false- 
hood for  asserting,  that  Professor  Campbell's  error  about  self-love  was 
adopted  by  the  General  Assambly.* 

RuF.  I  shall  read  the  words  of  the  Presbytery's  acknowledgment  of 
sin  concerning  this  matter.  "  It  has  been  publicly  asserted  and  main- 
tained by  him,"  namely,  by  Mr.  Campbell,  "that  the  sole  and  uni- 
versal motive  to  virtuous  actions  is  self-love,  interest  or  pleasure, 
whereby  self  is  exalted  into  the  throne  of  God  :  and  yet  the  Assem- 
bly, in  the  year  1736,  not  only  dismissed  the  publisher  of  this,  and 
several  such  gross  errors,  without  any  censure  inflicted  upon  him  or 
any  condemnation  of  his  errors ;  but,  instead  of  this,  the  Assembly 
admitted  his  explication  of  the  article  concerning  self-love,  viz.,  that 
our  delight  in  the  honor  and  glory  of  God  is  the  chief  motive  to  all 
virtuous  and  religious  actions  ;  whereby  it  appears,  that  the  aforesaid 
Assembly  have  adopted  the  above  erroneous  principle  concerning 
self-love  as  their  own  ;  in  regard  that  the  maintainer  thereof  does, 
by  the  above  explication,  still  make  our  delight  (and  so  our  self-love, 
interest,  or  pleasure)  the  chief  motive  of  all  virtuous  and  religious 
actions ;  so  that,  hereby  the  great  idol  self-love  is  still  exalted  and 
placed  in  the  throne  of  God  ;  and  the  declarative  glory  of  God  is  still 
subordinated  to  self  as  our  chief  and  highest  end."  Here  are  two 
things  to  be  considered  :  1st,  a  fact,  which  is,  that  the  Assembly  did 

*  Imp.  Test.,  page  28. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  293 

not  censure  Mr.  Campbell  for  his  opinion  concerning  self-love ;  hut 
admitted  bis  explication  of  it :  2d,  an  inference  from  the  fact,  viz., 
that  the  Assembly  adopted  his  erroneous  principle  concerning  self- 
love. 

Alex.  Mr.  Willison  says,  "  This  error  about  self-love,  and  others, 
were  brought  before  the  Assembly  in  the  year  1735,  who  referred 
them  to  their  commission ;  and  the  commission  appointed  a  commit- 
tee to  consider  them,  and  prepare  their  report  for  the  next  Assem- 
bly. Mr.  Campbell  labored  to  give  sound  and  orthodox  explications 
of  positions  ;  which  the  committee  brought  before  the  Assembly  in 
1*736,  with  their  remarks  and  censures  upon  them,  and  the  recom- 
mendation they  judged  fit  to  be  given  him.  The  Assembly,  upon 
hearing  Mr.  Campbell  at  great  length,  were  of  opinion,  that  the 
committee's  examining  and  stating  the  matter,  as  they  had  done,  was 
sufiicient  to  caution  him  against  the  errors  with  which  he  was  charg- 
ed, without  their  giving  any  judgemnt  or  formal  sentence  on  the 
committee's  report ;  only  they  recommended  it  to  him  not  to  use 
doubtful  expressions,  or  propositions,  which  might  lead  his  hearers 
or  readers  into  error."  In  the  issue,  indeed,  there  was  no  censure 
passed  upon  him ;  on  which  account  Mr.  Willison  owns,  that  himself 
and  many  others  were  highly  displeased.  He  owns,  too,  that,  though 
the  committee  laid  before  the  Assembly  Mr.  Campbell's  explication, 
you  have  mentioned,  of  his  position  of  self-love ;  yet  the  Assembly  dis- 
missed him  without  quarrelling  with  it.  But  this  should  be  looked  on 
as  a  pure  oversight  in  the  Assembly  through  their  not  adverting  to 
the  import  of  the  word  Delight ;  but  understanding  delight  in  the 
glory  of  God  as  the  same  thing  with  regard  to  the  glory  of  God,  be- 
cause of  their  affinity.  * 

RuF.  Mr.  Willison  then  allows  the  fact  that  the  Assembly  accept- 
ed Mr.  Campbell's  explication  without  quarrelling  or  finding  fault  with 
it ;  or,  as  the  Associate  Presbytery  says.  They  admitted  it.  Nor  is 
the  truth  of  the  fact  affected  by  excuse  of  oversight.  From  this  fact 
the  inference  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  is,  that  the  Assembly  adopt- 
ed Mr.  Campbell's  opinion  concerning  self-love ;  because  they  ap- 
proved his  explication,  which  was  only  a  different  manner  of  express- 
ing the  same  tenet  that  he  had  taught  in  his  writings.  He  was  so  far 
from  retracting  any  thing  he  had  advanced  on  this  subject,  that  he 
confidently  affirmed,  "  that  his  expressions  did  not  go  higher  than  his 
sentiments,  and  that  his  sentiments  did  not  go  beyond  the  nature  of 
things."  But  what  shows  still  more  clearly,  that  the  Assembly  adopt- 
ed Mr.  Campbell's  opinions,  as  expressed  in  his  explication,  is,  their 
declaring,  that  no  more  was  necessary  for  cautioning  against  the  error 
on  this  head,  that  some  at  first  supposed  Mr.  Campbell  to  be  guilty 
of,  than  the  following  report  of  the  committee  :  ''  They  express  their 

*  Imp.  Test,  pages  152,  153, 154. 


294  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

opinion  and  good  hopes,  that  Mr.  Campbell  had  no  unsound  meaning 
in  asserting  self-love  to  be  the  sole  principle  and  standard  and  motive 
of  all  religious  actions  ;  because  he  had  declared  before  them,  that,  by 
his  saying,  that  the  chief  or  sole  motive  to  virtuous  and  religious  ac- 
tions, was  the  desire  of  our  own  happiness,  he  meant  no  more,  than  that 
our  delight  in  the  glory  and  honor  of  God,  was  the  chief  motive." 
Now  this  is  just  the  the  propositions  in  the  approving  of  which  the 
Assembly  is  said  by  the  Associate  Presbytery  to  have  adopted  Mr. 
Campbell's  opinion  about  self-love. 

Alex.  Mr.  Willison  says.  When  the  Assembly  in  the  year  lYot 
were  informed  that  several  had  taken  offence,  as  if  the  preceding  As- 
sembly had  adopted  some  of  Mr.  Campbell's  offensive  expressions  on 
the  head  of  self-love,  they  vindicated  the  Church  of  Scotland  from 
that  charge  by  making  an  act  declaring,  that  they  do  steadfestly  adhere 
to  the  doctrine  expressed  in  our  standards  on  that  head  :  particularly, 
in  the  answer  to  that  question  in  our  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms, 
*'  What  is  the  chief  end  of  man  ?" 

RuF.  This  plea  has  been  ofien  offered,  and  as  often  rejected  by 
Seceders  ;  because  they  allege,  that  this  is  no  more  than  v/hat  Mr. 
Campbell  himself  had  done  ;  for  he  always  declared  his  adherence  to 
the  Confession  and  Catechisms ;  and  how  shall  we  know  whether  the 
Assembly's  adherence  to  these  standards  in  relation  to  the  chief  motive 
and  end  of  virtuous  and  religious  actions  is  any  other  or  better  than 
Mr.  Campbell's  ?  His  adherence  is  to  be  understood  in  a  sense  con- 
sistent with  what  he  had  written  on  that  subject,  which  he  never  re- 
tracted ;  and  their  adherence,  in  a  sense  consistent  with  their  accep- 
tance of  his  explanation,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  expressed  in  effect 
the  same  opinion  concerning  self-love  contained  in  the  passages  of  his 
writings  that  had  been  laid  before  them. 

The  General  Assembly  in  1131  seem  to  have  been  chargeable  with 
inconsistency  or  disingenuity,  in  saying,  '*  that  they  gave  no  formal 
judgment  or  sentence  on  the  report  of  their  committee  concerning  Mr. 
Campbell's  opinion  with  regard  to  self-love  ;"  although  they  declar- 
ed, that  report  to  be  sufficient  for  cautioning  against  the  error  of 
which  Mr.  Campbell  had  been  accused.  This  declaration  was  cer- 
tainly a  judgment,  a  final  and  definite  judgment,  on  the  committee's 
report.  It  is  evident,  that  it  had  all  the  effect  of  such  a  judgment ; 
for,  on  the  ground  of  it,  Mr.  Campbell  was  dismissed  without  censure ; 
and  the  Assembly  has  never  to  this  day  seen  cause  to  give  any  other 
judgment,  or  to  make  any  more  particular  or  express  declaration  of 
the  truth  in  opposition  to  Mr.  Campbell's  opinion.  Hence  it  appears, 
that  the  Assembly's  neglecting  to  censure  Mr.  Campbell's  explication 
of  some  passages  in  his  writings  concerning  self-love,  was  not  a  mere 
oversight ;  (whatever  might  have  been  the  case  with  some  worthy 
men  who  were  members  ;)  for  if  it  had  been  so,  they  would  have  en- 
deavored to  amend  it  afterwards  ;  at  least  by  a  suitable  assertion  and 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  295 

vindication  of  the  truth  in  direct  opposition  to  Mr.  Campbell's  errone- 
ons  expressions. 

§  25.  Alex.  Mr.  Willison  charges  the  testimony  of  the  Associate 
Presbytery  with  slander  for  asserting,  that  the  errors  of  the  Professors 
Simson  and  Campbell  and  those  of  a  publication,  entitled  the  Assem- 
bly^ i^  Shorter  Catechism  Revised,  had  overspread  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land, like  a  flood.  With  regard  to  that  publication,  Mr.  Willison  says, 
As  soon  as  it  was  publicly  known  in  Scotland,  the  commission  took  it 
under  consideration,  as  the  synod  of  Lothian  had  done  before  them ; 
passed  an  act  condemning  it ;  and  gave  warning  to  all  the  presbyte- 
ries of  this  church,  that  they  might  be  on  their  guard  against  the 
spreading  infection  of  it. 

RuF.  With  regard  to  the  errors  of  Messrs.  Simson  and  Campbell ; 
we  have  already  seen,  that  those  of  the  former  were  not  duly  censured ; 
and  that  thoEe  of  the  latter  were  not  censured  at  all.  Mr.  Campbell^ 
opinion  concerning  self-love  was,  on  the  matter,  adopted.  These  er- 
rors might  be  said  to  overspread  the  land ;  because  the  court,  which 
was  chargeable  with  suffering  them  to  pass  without  any  due  censure, 
represented  the  whole  Church  of  Scotland.  When  the  Corinthians 
neglected  to  censure  the  incestuous  person,  the  apostle  says  to  them, 
"  Know  ye  not,  that  a  little  leaven  leaveneth  the  whole  lump  ;"  and 
he  applies  the  same  truth  to  the  case  of  the  Galatians,  when  they  were 
troubled  with  false  teachers  ;  1  Corinth,  v.  6.     Gal.  v.  9.  • 

As  to  the  Assembly's  Catechism  revised ;  the  Associate  Presby- 
tery say,  that  they  would  not  have  taken  such  particular  notice  of  it, 
if  it  had  not  been  well  known  to  them,  that  the  scheme  of  doctrine  de- 
livered in  it  was  adapted  to  the  depraved  taste  of  the  present  age  ;  in 
which  revealed  religion  is  so  much  despised,  and  the  law  of  nature 
cried  up  as  sufficient  to  direct  men  to  true  blessedness. 

Mr.  Willison,  in  his  Testimony,  complains  of  a  legal  way  of  preach- 
ing as  prevailing.  "There  is  great  reason  to  fear,"  says  he,  ''that 
there  is  in  the  church  and  land  very  much  of  a  legal  and  moral  way 
of  preaching,  exclusive  of  Christ,  and  to  the  neglect  of  the  peculiar 
doctrines  of  Christianity."  Mr.  Willison  could  not  consistently  with 
this  and  various  other  passages  of  his  Testimony,  particularly,  those 
in  which  he  regrets  the  conduct  of  the  ecclesiastical  judicatories,  in 
the  cases  of  Messrs  Simson,  Campbell,  Wishart  and  Leechman,  con- 
demn the  Associate  Presbytery  for  lamenting  the  remarkable  spread 
and  prevalence  of  corrupt  doctrine,  at  that  time,  in  the  Church  of 
Scotland. 

§  26.  Alex.  Mr.  Willison  says,  that  the  assertion  in  the  Associ- 
ate Presbytery's  acknowledgment  of  sins,  that  their  Testimony  was 
condemned  in  bulk  by  the  Assembly  in  1738,  is  not  fact. 

RuF.  Mr.  Willison  here  either  denies  a  very  plain  fact,  or  he  uses 
words  in  a  sense  different  from  the  common  acceptation  of  thr-m. 
The  Assembly  condemned  the  Testimony  of  the  Associate  Presbyte- 


296  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

ry,  not  excepting  any  part  of  it.  Is  not  this  condemning  it  in  bulk  ? 
The  Associate  Presbytery,  in  the  passage  referred  to,  express  them- 
selves with  that  plainness  and  simpHcity  which  characterises  all  their 
compositions,  and  which  leaves  no  room  to  mistake  their  meaning. 
The  General  Assembly,''  say  they,  "condemned  in  hulk  the  Testi- 
mony emitted  by  the  Associate  Presbytery,  as  casting  many  ground- 
less and  calumnious  reflections  upon  the  said  judicatories,  without 
condescending  on  any  one  of  these,  which  they  called  groundless 
and  calumniuus  reflections."  The  judicial  condemnation  of  a  book, 
without  specifying  the  particulars  condemned,  is  a  condemnation  of  it 
in  hulk. 

Alex.  But  further,  it  is  asserted  in  the  Associate  Presbytery's  ac- 
knowledgment of  sins,  that  the  Assembly  in  1737,  condemned  the  de- 
clinature of  the  Associate  Presbytery,  as  containing  nothing  but 
groundless  prejudices,  which.  Mr.  Willison  says,  is  not  fact. 

RuF  I  have  here  a  copy  of  the  act  of  the  Assembly,  concerning 
the  declinature  of  the  Associate  ^'resbytery.  These  are  the  words  of 
it ;  '^  The  Assembly  find,  by  the  paper  given  in,"  (that  is  the  declina- 
ture,) that  the  said  defenders,"  (the  Seceding  ministers,)  "  condemn 
this  church  on  several  groundless  pretences."  There  are  no  other 
words  of  their  act  that  express  a  more  favorable  opinion  of  any  part 
of  the  declinature.  As  this  paper  consisted  of  charges,  upon  the 
ground  of  which,  the  Associate  Presbytery  disowned  the  authority  of 
the  judicatories  of  the  Established  Church  at  that  time  ;  and  as  the 
Assembly  declared  these  charges  to  be  indiscriminately  groundless 
pretences  ;  I  can  see  no  reason  to  blame  any  body  for  saying,  that 
they  condemned  the  whole,  as  containing  nothing  but  groundless  pre- 
judices. It  is  evident,  that  the  General  Assembly  denied  every  one 
of  the  charges  brought  against  them  in  this  paper  ;  and  that  all  the 
reason  they  gave  for  the  denial,  was  their  assertion,  that  ihese  min- 
isters had  condemned  the  Church  of  Scotland  on  several  groundless 
pretences,  which,  as  the  expression  is  here  used,  will  not  be  denied 
to  be  equivalent  to  groundless  prejudices.  Mr.  Willison  seems  to 
have  been  in  a  dilemma  here  :  he  was  conscious,  that  every  article  of 
the  declinature  was  founded  on  manifest  and  undeniable  truth.  But 
being  predetermined  to  maintain  a  favorable  opinion  of  the  Assem- 
bly, he  could  not  bring  himself  to  think,  or  at  least  to  say,  that,  that 
court  would  offer  such  a  gross  affront  to  truth  and  candor,  as  to  de- 
ny the  whole,  under  the  name  of  groundless  pretences ;  that  is,  he 
could  not  admit,  that  the  Assembly  declared  what,  if  he  was  present, 
he  certainly  heard  them  declare. 

Alex.  This  is  almost  insufferable,  Rufus,  to  suppose  Mr  Willison's 
prepossessions  to  have  been  so  strong  as  to  deprive  him  of  the  use  of 
his  external  senses. 

RuF.  There  have  been  philosophers,  whose  attachment  to  a  favor- 
ite theory  had  such  an  effect.     I  shall  only  say,  that  this  attempt  to 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  297 

cover  or  excuse  the  Assembly's  great  guilt,  in  representing  the  just 
charges  brought  against  them  by  the  Associate  Presbytery  as  nothing 
but  groundless  pretences,  is  sufficient  to  justify  any  candid  enquirer 
after  truth,  in  questioning  the  fairness  of  that  part  of  his  testimony 
which  relates  to  the  Seceding  ministers. 

§  2t.  Alex.  Mr.  WilUson  censures  the  Associate  Presbytery's  ac- 
knowledgment of  sins,  because  it  represents  the  kind  reception  of  Mr. 
Whitefield  as  increasing  the  sins  of  the  land,  and  as  a  denying  any 
particular  form  of  church  government  to  be  of  Divine  institution  ; 
which,  says  he,  is  false. 

RuF.  To  do  justice  to  the  Presbytery,  let  us  hear  their  own  words, 
which  I  shall  read.  "  The  sins  and  provocations  of  this  land  are  far- 
ther increased  by  the  kind  reception  that  many,  both  ministers  and 
people,  have  given  to  Mr.  George  Whitefield,  a  professed  member 
and  priest  of  the  superstitious  church  of  England ;  and  by  the  great 
entertainment  that  has  been  given  to  latitudlnarian  tenets,  as  farther 
propogated  by  him  and  others,  whereby  any  paticular  form  of  church 
government  is  denied  to  be  of  Divine  institution  ;  and  under  a  pre- 
tence of  catholic  love,  a  scheme  is  laid  for  uniting  parties  of  all  de- 
nominations in  church  communion,  in  a  way  destructive  of  any  testi- 
mony for  the  declarative  glory  of  IMMANUEL,  who  is  the  Head  and 
King  of  Zion,  and  covenanted  reformation  of  this  church  and  land : 
for  which  a  righteous  God  hath  justly  chosen  their  delusions )  and 
sent  forth  a  spirit  of  delusion  among  them,  in  the  present  awful  work 
upon  the  bodies  and  spirits  of  men. 

Alex.  What  connection  had  the  kind  reception  given  to  Mr. 
Whitefield  with  the  scheme  oi catholic,  or,  as  you  call  it,  latitudinarian 
communion,  which  was  the  subject  of  our  former  co-nversations  ? 

RuF.  The  countenance  that  was  given  to  the  ministrations  of  Mr. 
Whitefield,  was  connected  with  that  scheme  of  church  communion,  m 
two  respects. 

1st.  It  was  a  receding  from  the  testimony  which  the  ministers  and 
other  members  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  were  bound  by  their  princi- 
ples to  maintain  against  the  episcopal  government  and  superstitious 
ceremonies  of  the  Church  of  England  ;  and  also,  against  the  acknow- 
ledgment of  the  king's  supremacy  in  all  spiritual  and  ecclesiastic,  as 
well  as  civil  causes.  Mr.  Whitefield  had  aclmowledged  the  king  of  Eng- 
land to  have  such  power  over  the  church  there,  and  had  engaged  at 
his  ordination,  (which  was  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  dioce- 
san bishop)  to  be  subject  to  the  hierarchy  of  that  church.  When  the 
Associate  Presbytery  pressed  him  to  a  conversation  about  the  govern- 
ment of  the  church,  he  told  them  plainly,  that  he  had  no  difficulty 
about  that  matter;  that  he  was  of  the  communion  of  the  church  of 
England,  and  was  resolved  to  continue  so,  till  he  should  be  thrust 


298  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

out*  Now,  it  was  quite  inconsistent  with  the  Testimony  of  presby- 
terians  against  the  episcopal  government  of  the  Church  of  England, 
and  the  king's  supremacy  over  it,  to  hold  communion  with  a  minister 
who  avowed  himself  to  be  a  member  of  that  church,  and  who  never 
acknowledged  any  thing  in  its  constitution  to  be  sinful. 

2dly.  The  countenance  that  was  given  to  Mr.  Whitefield's  minis- 
trations was  an  approbation  of  the  latitudinarian  scheme ;  as  that 
scheme  was  avowed  and  taught  by  him.  It  is  uncandid  to  require  any 
proof  of  Mr.  Whitefield's  design  to  propogate  this  scheme  ;  because 
he  made  no  secret  of  it ;  but  was  perpetually  declaiming  against  all  de- 
bates about  modes  of  religious  worship  and  of  church  government,  as 
vain  and  prejudicial  to  vital  religion.  This,  with  the  manifest  tenden- 
cy of  his  journals,  and  some  other  publications  at  that  time,  convinced 
the  Associate  Presbytery,  that  a  plan  was  then  laid  for  uniting  parties 
of  all  denominations  in  church  communion,  in  a  way  destructive  of 
any  testimony  of  the  declarative  glory  of  IMMANUEL,  as  Head  and 
King  of  Zion ;  a  testimony  to  which  the  people  of  Great  Britain  had 
bound  themselves  by  the  solemn  league  and  covenant.  Mr.  Whitefield 
and  his  party  at  that  time  spoke  very  extravagantly  of  the  advanta- 
ges of  what  is  called  catholic  communion. 

''If  each  church,  said  he,  could  produce  but  one  man  apiece,  who  had 
the  piety  of  an  apostle,  and  the  impartial  love  of  the  Orst  christians 
in  the  first  church  of  Jerusalem,  a  Protestant  and  a  Papist  of  this 
stamp  would  not  want  half  a  sheet  to  hold  their  articles  of  union,  nor 
would  there  be  half  an  hour  before  they  would  be  of  one  religion. — He 
that  would  like  as  God  likes,  and  condemn  as  God  condemns,  must 
neither  have  the  eyes  of  a  Papist,  nor  those  of  a  Protestant,  "f  "  There 
is  a  catholic  spirit,"  said  one  of  Mr.  Whitefield's  party,  '*  a  communion 
of  saints  in  the  love  of  God  and  all  goodness,  which  no  one  can  learn 
from  that  which  is  called  orthodoxy  in  paticular  churches  ;  but  is  on- 
ly to  be  had  by  such  an  unction  from  above,  as  makes  the  mind  love 
truth  and  goodness,  with  an  equality  of  affection  in  every  man,  whether 
he  be  Christian,  Jew,  or  Gentile.  "J 

At  the  same  time,  the  Moravians  aud  Quakers  were  celebrated  as 
patterns  of  piety,  and  of  a  catholic  spirit.  But  there  was  a  deep  si- 
lence as  to  all  the  zeal  and  faithfulness  which  ministers  and  people 
have  manifested  in  contending  .against  prelacy  and  other  corruptions 
of  the  protestant  churches.     It  is  evident,  that  according  to   his  scheme 

*  See  Mr.  Fisher's  Review  of  what  has  been  called  an  extraordinary  work  a* 
Cambuslang,  Kilsyth,  &c.,  near  the  conclusion. 

+  A  letter  written  by  Mr.  Whitefield  to  the  religious  Societies  of  England,  re- 
printed with  an  address  to  the  Societies  of  Scotland. 

X  An  extract  subjoined  to  the  above-mentioned  letter,  pages  23  and  24.  This 
extract  Mr.  Whitefield  adopts,  as  "  exactly  expressing  the  language  of  his  own 
heart." 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  299 

of  uniting  diflferent  parties  in  one  church  communion,  a  testimony  main- 
tained by  any  of  these  parties,  for  such  truths  of  God's  word  as  are  de- 
nied by  others  of  them,  was  to  be  laid  aside  and  buried,  and  particu- 
larly a  testimony  for  the  truth  of  God  respecting  the  external  form  of 
worship  and  government  in  the  church  of  Christ ;  a  testimony  which 
is  evidently  for  the  declarative  glory  of  Immanuel,  as  Head  and  King 
of  Zion.  Hence,  the  Associate  Presbytery  might  well  acknowledge, 
that  this  latitudinarian  scheme  of  church  communion  was  destructive 
of  such  a  testimony. 

Alex.  Mr.  Willison  tells  us,  that  Mr.  Whitefield  was  come  the 
length  to  assert  openly,  that  Christ  is  the  Head  and  King  of  his  church, 
and  that  the  church  of  Scotland  was  the  best  constituted  national 
church  in  the  world.* 

RuF.  The  first  of  these  assertions  was  inconsistent  with  the  oath 
which  he  took  at  his  ordination,  acknowledging  the  king  to  be  head  of 
the  church  of  England ;  an  acknowledgment  which  it  does  not  appear 
that  he  ever  owned  to  be  sinful.  And  as  to  the  last,  concerning  the 
church  of  Scotland,  it  was  inconsistent  with  his  resolution  to  continue 
a  member  of  the  church  of  England  till  he  was  thrust  out.  Whether 
the  ascribing  these  assertions  to  Mr.  Whitefield,  be  not  a  greater  re- 
flection on  his  character  than  any  thing  that  was  ever  said  of  him  by 
the  Associate  Presbytery,  I  leave  you,  or  any  other  honest  man,  to 
judge. 

Alex.  If  God  thinks  fit  to  make  use  of  Mr.  Whitefield,  or  other  Meth- 
odists, to  turn  sinners  from  their  evil  ways,  to  seek  after  a  Saviour,  and 
God  through  him,  we  should  not  oppose  it,  but  let  them  alone  ;  lest 
haply  we  be  found  fighting  against  God.f 

RuF.  We  may  find  Prelates  and  Papists,  who  were  instrumental  in 
doing  much  good  :  Are  we  therefore  to  receive  them  into  church  com- 
munion, without  requiring  them  to  renounce  their  Popery  or  Prelacy  ? 

By  no  means.  Because  the  Lord  may  make  use  of  Methodists  in 
awakening  and  convincing  sinners,  and  in  bringing  them  to  the  knowl- 
edge of  some  of  his  truths,  it  does  not  follow,  that  we  ought  to  have 
communion  with  them  in  contempt  of  the  order  and  government  of 
Christ's  house,  and  in  their  Arminian  doctrine.  Nor  do  we  oppose 
what  is  truly  good  and  commendable  in  any,  when  we  refuse  to  coun- 
tenance their  obstinacy  in  errors  or  disorders.  When  the  Seceders  al- 
lege the  errors  or  disorders  of  Mr.  Whitefield  or  any  others,  as  a  reason 
for  their  refusing  to  hold  communion  with  them  ;  it  is  no  way  to  the 
purpose,  to  expatiate  on  what  God  has  done  for  them  and  by  them  : 
the  simple  question  is  this  ;  whether  their  errors  and  disorders  be  of 
such  a  nature,  and  so  obstinately  persisted  in,  as  to  render  it  unwar- 
rantable to  have  church  communion  with  them,  without  an  acknowl- 
edgment of  these  ofl"ences? 

*  Imp.  Test.,  page  126.       f  Ibid. 


300  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

On  the  whole,  Sir,  with  regard  to  the  article  under  consideration, 
it  cannot  reasonably  be  denied,  that,  by  the  kind  reception  which  Mr. 
Whitefield  met  with  amongst  ministers  and  people,  there  was  great 
countenance  and  encouragement  given  to  the  lax  scheme  of  church 
communion,  which  he  and  his  adherents  propagated';  implying,  among 
other  things,  that  it  is  no  duty  incumbent  on  the  people  of  God,  to 
to  maintain  a  testimony  against  the  diocesian  episcopacy  and  super- 
stitious ceremonies  of  the  Church  of  England.  If  this  scheme  of 
church  communion  is  contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  how  can  it  be 
denied,  that  the  countenance  given  to  it  by  so  many  minisfers  and 
people  increased  the  sins  of  the  land?  How  then  is  Mr.  Willison 
justifiable,  in  calling  the  Associate  Presbytery's  acknowledgment  of 
sins  to  this  purpose,  an  assertion  of  falsehood? 

It  may  be  added,  that  Mr.  Willison  ought  not  to  have  represented 
the  Associate  Presbytery  as  asserting  in  this  passage,  that  the  kind 
reception  of  Mr  Whitefield  was  a  denying  any  particular  form  of 
church  government  to  be  of  divine  institution ;  while  their  words  are, 
that,  by  the  kind  reception,  which  he  met  with,  "great  entertainment 
was  given  to  latitudinarian  tenets,  by  which  any  particular  form  of 
church  government  is  denied  to  be  of  Divine  institution."  The  Asso- 
ciate Presbytery  did  not  mean  to  charge  every  person,  that  countenan- 
ced Mr.  Whitefield,  with  formally  denying  that  truth ;  but  with  doing 
what  gave  entertainment  or  countenance  to  the  denial  of  it.  And 
it  is  certain  that  by  our  countenancing  and  following  a  celebrated 
preacher  who,  by  his  public  profession,  teaches  any  error,  entertain- 
ment or  countenance  is  given  to  that  error. 

Alex.  We  may  now  proceed  to  consider  what  the  Associate  Pres- 
bytery looked  on  as  a  righteous  judgment  of  God,  for  the  kind  enter- 
tainment  that   was   given   to    Mr.  Whitefield  and  latitudinarianism. 

With  regard  to  this,  Mr.  VVillison  says,  '•  They  represent  the  bles- 
sed work  "  in  the  west  of  Scotland  as  a  delusion. 

RuF.  The  members  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  were  far  from  pre- 
suming to  say,  that  none  were  savingly  wrought  upon  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  under  the  ministry  of  Mr.  V\hite field  and  others,  vvliere  this 
was  carried  on.  They  were  far  from  limiting  the  Holy  Spirit  who 
works  when  and  upon  whom  he  is  pleased  to  work,  wherever  there 
is  a  dispensation  of  his  own  word,  even  though  it  should  be  attended 
with  many  corruptions ;  as  in  the  church  of  England,  or  in  the  Greek 
church.  Besides,  when  they  say,  "  a  spirit  of  delusion  is  sent  forth 
among  the  subjects  of  this  work  ;"  It  is  not  meant,  that  all  those  who 
appeared  to  be  under  the  influence  of  such  a  spirit,  were  in  an  unre- 
generate  state,  or  destitute  of  saving  grace.  They  knew,  that  good 
men  may,  in  the  holy  sovereignty  of  God,  and  as  an  humb'ing  correc- 
tion, be  left  for  a  time  under  the  influence  of  a  spirit  of  delusion. 
Thus  when  Peter  dissuaded  our  Saviour  from  his  sufferings,  he  was  un- 
der the  influence  of  Satan^  as  our  Lord  intimated,  when  he  said  to 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  301 

Peter,  "  Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan  :  for  thou  art  an  offence  to  me". 
God's  leaving  the  truly  pious  to  fall  into  open  sins  may  be  ordered  as 
a  righteous  judgment  on  the  generation  among  whom  they  dwell.  Of 
this  Gideon's  ephod  and  David's  numbering  the  people  were  instances. 
Keeping  these  cautions  in  view,  we  may  allow,  that  the  Associate 
Presbytery  were  justifiable  in  acknowledging,  that  a  work  of  delusion 
was  carried  on  at  that  time,  for  several  reasons. 

In  the  first  place,  the  doctrine,  that  an  imaginary  idea  of  Christ  as 
man  is  helpful  to  faith,  was  preached  and  defended  by  Mr.  Robe, 
minister  of  Kilsyth,  and  others,  as  a  doctrine  which  was  verified  in 
the  experience  of  the  subjects  of  this  work.  Now  this  imaginary 
idea  of  Christ  is  a  delusion;  for  we  can  have  no  imaginary  idea  of 
any  person  as  man  but  a  human  person.  But  Christ  is  a  Divine  Per- 
son ;  and  in  all  his  mediatorial  works  and  sufferings,  he  is  to  be  view- 
ed, not  as  a  mere  man,  but  as  God-man.* 

In  the  second  place,  so  far  as  bodily  convulsions  or  involuntary 
fits  were  taken  for  any  part  of  the  saving  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
conversion,  as  for  certain  evidences  of  that  work  ;  so  far  a  spirit  of 
delusion  prevailed.  For  the  saving  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  imme- 
diately upon  the  understanding  and  the  will ;  and  the  proper  evi- 
dence of  it,  consists  in  the  gracious  exercise  of  those  renewed  facul- 
ties in  faith,  love,  repentance,  new  obedience.  Nay,  it  seems  delu- 
sive to  take  the  appearance  of  violent  bodily  convulsions  in  multi- 
tudes of  persons  for  any  sign  of  the  revival  of  the  Lord's  work  in  the 
church  ;  because,  we  have  neither  precept  nor  example  of  it  in  scrip- 
ture ;  as  what  ever  was  or  ever  would  be,  in  any  period,  a  sign  of 
the  success  of  the  gospel.  There  is  not  one  certain  example  of  such 
involuntary  motions,  or  violent  convulsions  attending  the  ministry  of 
the  apostles. 

Alex.  Mr.  Willison  says,  it  is  unreasonable  to  require  instances 
in  Scripture  for  every  minute  circumstance  of  the  innumerable  various 
cases  of  persons  brought  to  Christ,  f 

P».UF.  But  how  is  this  applicable  to  the  word  in  question ;  the  sub- 
jects of  which,  however  various  their  characters  and  cases,  are  said 
to  have  been  generally  seized  with  bodily  convulsions,  which  were 
commonly  mentioned,  not  as  minute  circumstances,  but  as  a  conspic- 
uous part  of  the  work,  and  as  what  could  not  be  accounted  for  with- 
out admitting  them  to  proceed  from  the  supernatural  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  the  conviction  or  conversion  of  sinners,  Seceders  do 
not  think,  that  we  may  expect  to  find  examples  in  Scripture  of  eve- 
ry circumstance  accidentally  attending  the  saving  work  of  the  Holy 

*  Mr.  Ralph  Erskine's  Faith  no  Fancy,  or  treatise  of  mental  images,  is  an  ex- 
cellent illustration  and  defence  of  this  doctrine.  There  seems  to  be  no  book  of 
human  composure  on  the  person  of  Christ,  which  deserves  better  to  be  perubed 
by  students  in  divinity. 

t  Imp.  Test.,  pages  186,  187. 


302  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS 

Spirit  under  the  gospel ;  but  they  believe,  that,  we  may  find  in  Scrip- 
lure,  examples  of  those  things  which,  in  any  period,  attend  that  wdrk 
as  effects  or  signs  of  it.  Mr.  Whitefield  himself  does  not  seem  to 
have  esteemed  these  bodily  affections  so  much  as  some  of  his  follow- 
ers. '*  These  bodily  convulsions,"  said  he,  "I  believe,  come  from  the 
devil,  who  wants  to  bring  an  evil  report  on  the  work  of  God,  now 
going  on  among  us,  by  such  fits.''* 

In  the  third  place,  the  Associate  Presbytery,  when  they  agreed  on 
their  acknowledgment  of  public  sins,  were  deeply  impressed  with  the 
guilt  of  the  judicatories  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  in  carrying  on  a 
course  of  defection  from  the  received  principles  of  the  (  hurch  of 
Scotland  ;  and  in  countenancing  erroneous  teachers,  such  as  Simson 
and  Campbell ;  in  censuring  a  testimony  for  gospel  truth  formerly 
given  by  those  who  were  called  Marrow-men,  and  afterwards  by  the 
Associate  Presbytery ;  in  the  violent  intrusion  of  ministers  on  re- 
claiming congregations ;  in  subordinating  themselves  in  the  exercise 
of  their  ecclesiastical  functions  to  the  civil  power.  Hence  when 
these  and  the  like  public  corruptions  were  countenanced ;  and  the 
maintaining  of  any  faithful  testimony  against  them  was  condemned, 
and  virulently  reproached,  as  bigotry,  envy  and  pride,  by  the  gener- 
ality of  the  most  active  promoters  of  what  was  called  a  gracious 
work  of  the  Spirit ;  the  members  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  could  not 
help  believing,  that  there  must  be  delusion  in  the  case ;  for  none 
could  be  led  by  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God  to  justify  corruptions  so  con- 
trary to  his  word,  nor  to  oppose  and  reproach  a  faithful  testimony 
against  them. 

We  may,  on  these  grounds,  safely  conclude,  that,  according  to  the 
principles  of  the  Associate  Presbytery,  which  are  the  genuine  princi- 
ples of  the  Church  of  Scotland  in  her  reforming  times,  the  particu- 
lars which  were  pointed  out  as  attending  that  work  on  the  bodies 
and  spirits  of  men,  are  justly  acknowledged  to  be  delusions. 

It  may  also  be  remarked  upon  this  article,  as  upon  some  other  ar- 
ticles, that  Mr.  Willison  neither  quotes  the  words  of  the  Associate 
Presbytery,  nor  gives  the  sense  of  them  fairly.  When  he  represents 
the  Associate  Presbytery  as  swearing  that  the  blessed  work  in  the 
West  of  Scotland  is  a  delusion  ;  a  reader  may  be  led  to  conclude, 
that  the  Associate  Presbytery  meant,  that  whatever  was  said  to  be- 
long to  that  work ;  that  all  the  conviction  of  sin,  the  knowledge  of 
Christ,  the  praying,  reading  and  hearing  the  word  of  God,  and  other 
pious  exercises  ascribed  to  the  subjects  and  promoters  of  this  work, 
were  delusions.  But  the  words  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  will  bear 
no  such  construction.  One  should  think,  that  it  was  not  difficult  for 
Mr.  Willison  to  have  given  a  fair  representation  of  the  judgment  of 
the  Associate  Presbytery  on  this  subject  j  because  the  members  of  it 

*  Journal,  part  3d,  page  63. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  303 

bad  been  very  explicit  in  pointing  out  the  particulars  which  they  ac- 
counted evils  in  that  work.  In  an  act,  for  example,  published  in  the 
year  1742,  containing  reasons  for  a  fast,  they  have  the  following 
words  in  relation  to  this  work  :  "  Bitter  outcryiugs,  faintings,  severe 
bodily  pains,  convulsions,  visions,  are  the  usual  symptoms  of  a  delu- 
sive spirit.  The  promoters  of  this  work  are  going  on  in  the  same 
course  of  defections,  as  before.  'J  he  following  fruits  and  effects  of  it 
are  undeniably  evident,  viz.,  The  warmest  aversion  and  opposition 
to  a  testimony  for  our  covenanted  reformation ;  for  the  very  same 
principles,  which  have  been  sworn  to,  and  suffered  for  unto  blood,  in 
these  lands,  as  if  it  were  nothing  but  bigotry  and  party  zeal;  and 
the  closest  conjunction  with  such  ministers,  whether  intruders  or  not, 
as  are  continuing  to  bear  down  those  principles  with  a  high  hand  ; 
contrary  to  the  practice  of  Scripture  converts,  and  the  experience 
of  the  saints  of  God  in  this  land ;  who,  upon  their  conversion,  still 
espouse  the  testimony  of  their  day,  and  contended  for  the  present 
truth." 

Mr.  Willison  never  attempts  to  state  with  precision,  the  question 
between  the  Associate  Presbytery  and  their  opponents  ;  but  runs  out 
into  a  long  enumeration  of  things  which,  he  says,  were  found  in  the 
subjects  of  this  work ;  and  which,  as  he  might  have  charitably  be- 
lieved, the  members  of  presbytery  were  fully  as  glad  to  hear  of  being 
found  in  these  people  or  in  any  other,  as  he  himself  could  be.  The 
truth  is,  when  we  read  what  was  written  by  Mr.  Willison,  Mr.  Robe, 
and  other  advocates  for  this  work,  we  are  led  to  suppose,  that  there 
was  a  most  remarkable  revival  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  work  in  convinc- 
ing and  converting  sinners ;  and  in  exciting  them  to  liveliness  and 
zeal  in  prayer,  hearing  the  preached  gospel,  and  other  religious  ex- 
ercises ;  but  that  all  this  was  opposed,  with  the  greatest  malignity, 
by  the  Seceders,  on  pretence  of  some  trifling  disorders  and  omissions. 
On  the  other  hand,  when  we  read  what  was  written  on  this  subject 
by  the  members  of  the  Associate  Presbytery,  we  do  not  find  one  syl- 
lable against  such  religious  exercises  :  it  appears  that  what  they  cen- 
sured and  lamented  in  this  w^ork  was  nothing  else  but  these  evils, 
which  were  called  their  pretences,  and  which  no  supposed  connection 
with  commendable  things,  could  make  right. 

§  28.  Alex.  Mr.  Willison  adds,  this  is  but  a  swatch  [or  sample] 
of  the  many  false  aspersions  contained  in  their  writings,  besides  those 
which  they  cast  on  their  brethren  in  their  sermons.  There  are  indeed 
many  evils  in  the  National  Church ;  but  it  is  sinful  to  calumniate  her, 
and  make  her  defections  greater  than  they  are.* 

RuF.  Since  there  is  no  proof  of  slander  in  any  of  the  passages  which 
Mr.  Willison  has  produced  from  the  writings  of  the  Associate  Presby- 
tery, he  could  not  reasonably  refer  us  for  proof  of  it  to  passages  which 

*  Imp.  Test.,  page  170. 


304  ALEXANDEE  AND  EUFUS. 

he  has  omitted.  The  facts,  upon  which  the  Associate  Presbytery  have 
grounded  their  charges  against  the  Established  Church  of  Scotland, 
are  correctly  stated  from  the  public  and  authentic  records  of  that 
church.  Indeed  Mr.  Willisou's  own  account  of  most  of  these  facts  is 
not  much  different  from  theirs.  Only  with  regard  to  several  of  them, 
whilst  the  Associate  Presbytery  condemn  them  as  contrary  to  the  word 
of  God  and  as  grounds  of  his  controversy  with  the  church,  Mr.Willi- 
son  apologizes  for  them  and  extenuates  the  sin  of  those  who  were 
actually  concerned  in  them.  Thus,  he  wishes,  that  the  first  General 
Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  after  the  revolution,  had  been 
more  explicit,  with  respect  to  the  fearful  indignities  done  to  the  cov- 
enants into  which  the  people  of  Scotland  had  entered  for  religion  and 
reformation ;  and  that  they  had  applied  to  the  civil  powers  for  their 
concurrence  in  the  renovation  of  them.  But  then  he  observes,  that 
those  who  knew  the  difiiculties  which  our  ancestors  had  to  struggle 
with,  will  rather  be  inclined  to  pity,  than  to  censure  them.  He  owns 
the  omissions  of  the  General  Assembly  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Simson  ; 
but  makes  an  apology  by  telling  us,  that  some  said  it  would  be  better 
to  bind  him  up  by  suspension,  "and  by  keeping  him  under  it,  than  by 
deposition,  to  provoke  a  man  of  his  learning  to  make  open  attacks 
upon  the  most  important  truths  of  our  holy  religion.  He  allows, 
that  the  Assembly  recommended  the  report  of  their  committee,  which 
approved  Mr.  ('ampbell's  explanation  of  his  opinion  of  these  words  ; 
"  That  our  delight  in  the  glory  of  God  is  the  chief  motive  of  virtuous 
actions."  But  then  he  adds,  that  this  should  be  looked  upon  as  a 
pure  oversight  in  the  Assembly,  through  their  not  adverting  to  the 
import  of  the  word  delight ;  and  that  they  afterward  vindicated  them- 
selves by  declaring  their  adherence  to  the  answer  of  the  Larger  and 
Shorter  Catechisms  to  the.  What  is  the  chief  end  of  man  ?  though  Mr. 
Willison  knew,  that  Mr.  Campbell  himself  had  made  the  same  declar- 
ation without  retracting  any  of  his  errors.  Again,  he  seems  to  ac- 
knowledge the  sin  of  the  ministers  in  reading  the  act  of  parliament 
concerning  captain  Porteus ;  but  on  the  other  hand,  he  adds,  that 
there  were  several  pious  and  conscientious  ministers,  who  read  this 
act,  and  who,  says  he,  we  were  in  charity  bound  to  think  acted  sin- 
cerely in  this,  as  in  other  matters.  That  such  apologies  in  Mr.  Wil- 
lisou's Testimony,  are  instances  of  vile  daubing  with  untempered 
mortar,  appears  from  the  view  we  have  taken  of  the  cases  to  which 
they  refer.  His  dealings  in  such  frivolous  excuses,  is  just  as  if  the 
Levites,  in  their  confession  recorded  in  the  tenth  chapter  of  Nehe- 
miah,  having  acknowledged  the  sin  of  making  the  golden  calf  which 
the  Israelites  worshiped  in  the  wilderness,  had  added,  that  as  for 
Aaron  and  other  good  men  concerned  in  that  affair,  they  had  no  ill 
design  :  or,  as  if  Paul  had  attempted  to  excuse  Peter,  Barnabas  and 
others,  in  the  affair  of  dissimulation  mentioned  in  the  scond  chapter 
of  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  saying,  These  good  men  had  no  de- 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS,  305 

sign  of  dissembling,    oi*    if  not  walking  iipriglitly  according  to  llie 
truth  of  the  gospel.     But.  we  never  find  the  saints  in  scripture   ener- 
Tating  their  testimonies  againsi  public  evils,  or  their  acknowledgment 
of  them,  by  any  softening  or  extenuating  expressions.     J  know  not 
how  it  can  be  denied,  that  the  Associated  Presbytery's  p'an,  pointed, 
particular  manner  of  testifying  against  the  sins  of  the  present  genera- 
tion, and  of  their  fathers,   was  just  the  manner  of  iV'oses,    of  P^lijah, 
of  Jeremiah,    of  Kzra  and  Nehemiah,  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles      I 
cannot  help  remarking,  that  Mr.  \\  illison  shows  us  in  the  passage  you 
have  recited,    what  account  he  and  others   would  have  made  of  any 
faithful  testimony,  that  might  have  been  given  by  these  brethren  from 
the  pulpit,  if  they  had  continued  in  the  communion  of  the  Established 
(■hurch  ;  for  their  testimony  in  that  way,  would  have  been  just  what 
Mr.  Willison  calls  their  daily  casting  aspersions  on  their  brethren  in 
their  sermons.     The  matter  of  such  a  testimony  would  have  been  the 
same  public  corruptions  which  are  specified  in  their  judicial  testimo. 
ny,  their  declinature,  and  other  public  papers  :  and  I  have  not  under- 
stood that  any  other  evils  were  mentioned  in  the  sermons  to  which 
Mr.  Willison  alludes.     He  inveighs  against  these  brethren  for  their 
secession   from   the  Established  Church,  and  insists  that  they  might 
have  maintained  a  doctrinal  testimony  in  the  way  of  communion  :  but 
how  could  Mr.  Willison  himself  have  kept  communion  with  them,  if 
he  had  found  them  daily  casting  false  aspersions  upon  their  brethren, 
calumniating  the  church,  and  making  her  defections  far  greater  than 
they  really    were  ?     Ouirht   not    Mr.   Willison  to  have  been  rather 
thankful  for  the  removal   of  such  slanderers  from  the  communion  of 
the  Established  Church  ?    One  design  of  his  pretended  Impartial  Tes- 
timony, which  serves  to  account  for  its  inconsistencies,  is,  to  reconcile 
his  former  profession  of  zeal  for  the  covenanted  principles  of  the  Church 
of  Scotland  with  his  then   present  conjunction  with  the  backsliding 
judicatories  in  opposition  to  the  Seceders  ;  two   things  which  were 
quite  irreconcilable, 

§  29.  Alex.  There  are  some  things,  which  Seceders  consider  as 
important  evils,  against  which  they  judge  it  necessary  to  bear  testi- 
mony, which,  in  the  opinion  of  sensible  men,  are  trifles.  Thus  they 
speak  much  against  the  common  use  of  lots.  I  am  against  games  of 
chance  ;  for  I  know,  that  playing  at  cards  and  dice  has  ruined  many. 
A  gambler  is  a  despicable  character.  But  may  not  persons  amuse 
themselves  with  drawing  cuts  or  tossing  a  cent  ?  Why  may  he  not, 
if  he  can  afford  it,  purchase  a  ticket  of  a  public  lottery  ?  I  must  own 
I  have  no  favorable  opinion  of  such  as  place  any  moral  good  or  evil 
in  such  things. 

RuF.   Sometimes  things  w^hich  at  first  appear  trivial  are  found,  up- 
on more  serious  consideration,    to  have  much  good  or  evil  in  them, 
which  we  had  overlooked  before.     In  England  by  a  statute  in  the 
reign  of  king  William  III.,  all  lotteries  were  declared  to  be  public  nui- 
20 


306  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

sances  ;  and  all  grants,  patents,  or  licences  for  them  to  be  contrary  to 
law.*  But  now,  state  lotteries  are  much  used  in  raising  supplies  for 
the  expenses  of  government ;  and  among  us  public  lotteries  are  often 
advertised,  and  people  are  invited  to  purchase  their  tickets  for  the 
building  of  churches  or  houses  for  public  worship.  The  Seceders  be- 
lieve, that  the  proposers  of  such  lotteries,  and  the  buyers  and  sellers 
of  their  tickets,  ought  to  be  censured,  and  not  connived  at  or  encou- 
raged by  church  rulers.  The  reasons  they  give  for  this  article  of  their 
profession,  are  chiefly  two. 

In  the  first  place,  because  we  have  no  warrant  to  use  lots  for  the 
purpose  of  getting  money.  A  lot  is  warrantably  used  for  determin- 
ing a  matter  in  debate  ;  the  determination  of  which  is  otherwise  im- 
practicable. Prov.  XVIII.  18,  "The  lot  parteth  within  the  mighty, 
and  causeth  contentions  to  cease."  A  lot  is  a  solemn  appeal  to  God, 
for  an  immediate  decision  of  the  motter  in  question,  by  the  agency  of 
his  Providence.  Prov.  xvi.  33,  "The  lot  is  cast  into  the  lap  ;  but  the 
whole  disposing  thereof  is  of  the  Lord."  The  matter,  about  which 
this  appeal  is  made,  ought  to  be  of  great  necessity  and  importance. 
Hence,  this  ordinance  is  abused,  when  persons  set  about  it  without 
solemn  deliberation  and  earnest  prayer ;  or  when  they  resort  to  it  in 
trivial  matters,  or  in  cases  which  they  might  determine  by  the  proper 
use  of  their  reason.  It  is  a  flagrant  abuse  of  the  lot,  to  attempt  to 
get  money  by  means  of  it.  A  gaming  table,  which  is  a  private  lottery, 
is  generally  allowed  to  be  an  unlawful  way  of  getting  money.  Hence, 
according  to  the  statute  law  of  England,  all  bonds  and  other  securi- 
ties, given  for  money  won  at  play,  are  utterly  void  ;  and  a  person 
who  at  any  time  or  sitting,  loses  ten  pounds  at  play,  may  sue  the  win- 
ner, and  recover  it  by  any  action  of  debt  at  law.f  If  the  getting  of 
money  by  a  lottery  be  unlawful,  the  circumstance  of  its  being  public 
will  not  make  it  lawful :  nor  will  the  pious  use,  to  which  we  propose 
to  apply  the  money  thus  attained,  make  the  lottery  lawful ;  unless  we 
admit  the  Jesuitical  doctrine,  that  sinful  means  are  sanctified  by  the 
goodness  of  the  end  proposed  ;  or,  in  other  words,  that  we  may  do 
eril,  that  good  may  come.  Besides,  public  lotteries  manifestly  tend  to 
encourage  private,  by  the  force  of  example.  Thus  they  promote  the 
spirit  and  pernicious  habit  of  gaming. 

In  the  second  place,  the  Seceders  disapprove  the  method  of  raising 
money  for  the  public  use  of  either  church  or  state  by  lotteries ;  because 
there  are  other  ways  agreeable  to  scripture  and  reason,  which  are  suffi- 
cent  for  that  purpose  ;  such  as  taxes  imposed  by  the  civil  authority, 
or  voluntary  contributions.  These  are  means  on  which  we  may  war- 
rantably seek  and  expect  the  Divine  blessing. 

*  BlackStone's  Commentary,  Book  iv.,  chapt.  13. 
t  BlackstoBe's  Com.,  book  iv.,  chap.  13, 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  307 

But  the  purchasing  of  ticketsnn  a  lottery,  whatever  use  is  proposed 
to  be  made  of  the  profits  arising  from  it,  is  not  only  different  from,  but 
opposite  to,  the  duty  of  honoring  the  Lord  with  our  substance,  bj 
giving  freely  for  a  pious  and  charitable  use,  or  by  conscientiously  con- 
tributing our  share  toward  bearing  the  necessary  expenses  of  civil  gov- 
ernment :  for,  in  purchasing  the  tickets  of  a  lottery,  persons  are  natu- 
rally influenced  by  the  prizes  offered  in  the  advertisement,  and  their 
minds,  of  course,  inflamed  with  vain  imaginations  and  prospects  of  be- 
coming suddenly  rich. 

Alex.  By  this  means,  many  are  induced  to  contribute  liberally  to 
the  building  of  houses  for  public  worship,  who  otherwise  would  not 
part  with  a  cent  for  any  such  purpose. 

RuF.  You  ought  to  have  added,  that  in  this  way,  the  awful  and 
solemn  ordinance  of  the  lot  is  prostituted  for  the  sake  of  wordly  gain  ; 
and,  by  such  an  example,  the  pernicious  practice  of  gaming  for  money 
is  encouraged.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say,  that  money,  gained  by  such 
means,  is  no  better  than  the  hire  of  a  whore,  or  the  price  of  a  dog, 
which  ought  never  to  come  into  the  house  of  the  Lord. 

Alex.  I  do  not  wish  to  insist  on  this  subject,  nor  to  be  consider- 
ed as  an  advocate  for  public  lotteries  ;  though  I  know,  that  they  have 
been  defended  by  some  great  and  good  men. 

RuF.  Men  who,  on  varions  accounts,  are  entitled  to  these  epithets, 
have  defended  playing  at  cards  ;  yet  the  generality  of  tender  chris- 
tians, who  read  few  other  books  than  their  Bible,  are  at  no  loss  to  see 
and  abhor  the  sinfulness  of  that  practice. 

Not  many  wise,  rich,  noble  or  profound 

In  science,  win  one  inch  of  heavenly  ground  ; 

And  is  it  not  a  mortifying  thought, 

The  poor  should  gain  it,  and  the  rich  should  not  ? 

Cooper's  Truth. 

§  30.  Alex.  I  shall  only  mention  another  instance  of  the  weakness 
of  the  Seceders.  They  complain  of  the  other  churches,  for  not  testi- 
fying against  the  Mason  word  or  oath.  I  suppose,  people  of  other 
denominations  have  more  sense  than  to  lift  up  a  testimony  against 
that  which  they  knew  nothing  of,  as  the  Seceders  have  done. 

RuF.  Since  we  began  to  converse  about  the  secession  body,  we 
have  considered  several  things,  against  which  they  bear  testimony  ;  we 
have  found  them  to  be  either  the  public  acts  and  proceedings  of  judi- 
catories, or  matters  that  have  been  long,  generally  and  publicly  prac- 
tised ;  or  that  have  been  published  by  the  press  to  the. world.  These 
were  things  which  they  could  not  fail  to  know,  unless  they  were  will- 
ing to  remain  ignorant  of  the  state  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
Scotland  and  America.  So  that  I  can  hardly  concieve  a  more  weak 
and  silly  objection  against  their  testimony  concerning  such  things 
than  this,  that  it  is  a  testimony  against  that  of  which  they  knew  no- 
thing. 


308  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

Alex.  This  may  hold  true,  however*  with  regard  to  their  testimo- 
ny against  the  Mason  oath,  which,  though  it  has  been  from  time  im- 
memorial in  use  among  a  certain  class  of  people,  is  still  said  to  be  to 
all  others  an  impenetrable  secret. 

RuF.  If  you  mean,  that  the  Seceders  proceeded  to  condemn  that 
oath,  before  they  had  been  careful  to  obtain  sufficient  information,  I 
refer  you  to  an  act  of  the  Associate  Synod  on  that  subject,  passed  at 
Edinburgh,  in  the  year  1757.  An  overture  had  been  laid  before  that 
Synod,  in  the  year  1745,  bearing,  that  there  were  very  strong  pre- 
sumptions, that  among  Masons,  an  oath  of  secrecy  is  administered  to 
persons  at  their  entrance  into  their  society,  even  under  a  capital  pen- 
alty, and  before  any  of  these  things,  which  they  swear  to  keep  secret, 
be  revealed  to  them ;  and  that  they  pretend  to  take  some  of  these  se- 
crets from  the  Bible ;  besides  other  things,  which  are  ground  of  scru- 
ple in  the  manner  of  swearing  said  oath ;  proposing,  that  the  Synod 
should  consider  the  whole  affair  ;  and  give  directions  with  respect  to 
the  admission  of  persons,  who  are  engaged  in  that  oath,  to  sealing  or- 
dinances. The  Synod  then  remitted  this  overture  to  the  several  ses- 
sions subordinate  to  them  ;  directing  them  to  proceed  therein,  as  far 
as  they  should  find  practicable,  according  to  received  and  known 
principles,  and  the  plain  rule  of  God's  word  and  sound  reason.  About 
ten  years  afterwards,  the  synod  appointed  the  sessions  under  their  in- 
spection to  require  all  persons  in  their  respective  congregations,  who 
were  presumed  or  suspected  to  have  been  engaged  in  that  oath,  to 
make  a  plain  acknowledgement,  whether  or  not  they  have  ever  been 
so,  and  to  require,  that  such  as  they  may  find  to  have  been  engaged 
therein,  should  give  ingenuous  answers  to  what  further  enquiry  the 
sessions  may  see  cause  to  make  concerning  the  tenor  and  administra- 
tion of  the  said  oath  to  them.  In  the  year  1757,  the  synod  found, 
that  from  the  time,  at  which  the  overture  concerning  the  Mason  oath 
was  first  laid  before  them,  that  is,  for  about  twelve  years,  the  sessions 
subordinate  to  them  had  been  dealing  with  persons  under  their  in- 
spection. From  the  confessions  made  to  these  sessions,  the  synod 
was  led  to  consider  this  oath  as  a  heinous  profanation  of  the  Lord's 
name  ;  and  to  direct  the  sessions,  in  dealing  with  Masons  and  others 
involved  in  this  oath,  to  put  the  following  questions  to  them :  Wheth- 
er it  was  not  an  oath  binding  them  to  keep  a  number  of  secrets,  none 
of  which,  before  swearing  it,  they  were  allowed  to  know  ?  Whether 
the  oath  did  not  contain,  besides  a  solemn  invocation  of  the  Lord's 
name,  a  clause  subjecting  the  swearer,  in  case  of  breaking  it,  to  some 
such  penalty  as  that  of  having  his  tongue  and  heart  taken  out  ? 
Whether  the  oath  was  not  administered  to  them  with  several  supersti- 
tious ceremonies,  such  as,  requiring  them  to  deliver  up  any  thing  of 
metal,  which  they  had  upon  them ;  and  making  them  kneel  upon  their 
right  knee  bare,  holding  their  right  arm  bare,  with  their  elbow  upon 
the  Bible,  or  with  the  Bible  laid  before  them ;  or  having  the  Bible,  as 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  309 

also  the  square  and  compasses,  in  some  particular  way  applied  to 
their  bodies  ? — and  whether,  among  the  secrets  which  they  were 
bound  by  the  oath  to  keep,  there  was  not  a  passage  of  scripture  read 
to  them,  particularly,  1  Kings  vi.  21,  with  or  without  some  explana- 
of  it  ?  The  synod  determined,  that  persons  who  would  refuse  to  give 
plain  and  particular  answers  to  the  foregoing  questions  shall  be  reput- 
ed under  scandal, — incapable  of  admission  to  sealing  ordinances,  till 
they  answer  and  give  satisfaction.* 

It  is  evident,  from  this  account,  that  the  act  of  the  Associate  Synod 
concerning  the  Mason  oath  cannot  be  said  to  have  been  gone  into 
rashly  :  it  was  the  result  of  an  enquiry  carried  on  by  the  sessions 
subordinate  to  the  synod  for  twelve  years  in  a  great  many  different 
places.  This  oath  is  indeed  a  gross  profanation  of  the  Lord's  name. 
The  taker  of  it  binds  himself  to  keep  a  number  of  secrets  before  he 
has  the  least  knowledge  of  them ;  and  subjects  himself  to  a  penalty, 
the  execution  of  which,  upon  the  account  specified  in  the  oath,  would 
be  horrid  murder.  The  taking  of  the  oath,  as  it  implies  an  agree- 
ment to  the  execution  of  that  penalty,  is  a  trampling  upon  the  laws 
of  God  and  man.  It  does  not  appear,  that  their  signs  and  secrets 
are  any  thing  else  but  vain  superstition.  The  Mason  lodges  of  many 
different  and  distant  nations,  are  said  to  be  intimately  connected. 
Hence,  the  influence  of  their  profane  and  superstitious  practices  must 
be  extensive ;  against  which  it  is  the  more  necessary  to  give  a  faith- 
ful warning.  It  appears  from  the  account  lately  given  of  the  Illu- 
minati,  by  Professor  Robinson  and  Barrouil,  that  in  Germany  and 
France,  Mason  lodges  had  been  employed  as  vehicles  for  propagating 
the  most  pernicious  principles  aud  counsels  against  religion  and  civil 
government. 

*  See  the  Display  of  the  Secession  Testimony,  pages  128, 129, 130. 


310  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 


DIALOGUE  ni. 

The  occasion  of  the  Associate  Presbytery's  act  concerning  the  doctrine  of  grace 
— A  proposition  agreed  on  by  the  Presbytery  of  Anchterarder,  and  condemned 
by  the  General  Assembly — The  Marrow  of  Modern  Divinity  condemned  by  an 
act  of  the  Assembly — The  representation  of  the  Gospel  as  a  free  grant  of  a 
Savionr  to  sinners  of  mankind  indefinitely,  vindicated — ^An  appropriation  of 
Christ  to  ourselves  in  particular,  necessarily  included  in  Saving  Faith — The 
Assembly's  making  good  works  necessary  as  a  federal  condition  of  justifica- 
tion and  salvation,  shown  to  be  a  dangerous  error — The  freedom  of  be' 
lievers  from  the  commanding  and  condemning  power  of  the  law  as  a  cove- 
nant of  works — The  motives  by  which  believers  ought  to  be  influenced  in 
yielding  gospel  obedience— The  distinction  between  the  law  as  a  covenant, 
and  the  law  as  a  rule  of  life,  necessary — The  Evangelical  grounds  of  obe- 
dience to  the  law— An  act  passed  by  the  Associate  Synod  against  Arminian 
errors  on  the  head  of  universal  redemption— Christ's  suretyship  described— 
Who  they  are,  for  whom  he  laid  down  his  life— His  love  to  them— Christ's 
death  and  intercession  of  the  same  extent  as  to  their  objects — Salvation  secur- 
ed by  the  death  of  Christ  to  all  the  objects  of  it — Benefits  of  which  ungodly 
men  are  partakers,  not  purchased  for  them  by  the  death  of  Christ— Universal 
redemption,  not  the  ground  of  the  gQspel  offer. 

RuFUS  was  recovering  from  a  dangerous  illness,  when  he  was  again 
visited  by  Alexander.  On  this  occasion,  after  mutual  congratula- 
tions, the  conversation  took  the  following  turn  : — 

KuF.  In  my  sickness,  when  I  was  brought  low,  even  to  the  gates 
of  death,  the  only  consolation,  in  which  I  found  rest,  was  the  gospel, 
especially  considered  as  the  free  grant  of  a  Saviour,  and  as  affording 
me  a  sufficient  warrant  to  say,  In  him  have  I,  a  poor  sinner,  right- 
eousness and  salvation.* 

Alex.  I  hope  you  had  that  faith  which  worketh  by  love.  But 
your  language  savours  of  the  definition  which  the  Associate  Presby- 
tery give  of  Saving  Faith  in  their  act  concerning  the  doctrine  of 
grace.  Mr.  Willison  says,  that  though  there  be  many  precious  truths 
in  that  act,  yet  there  are  some  assertions  too  loose,  unguarded,  and 
even  bordering  too  near  the  doctrine  called  Antinomianism  ;  which, 

*  "  While  in  my  extremity,  death  stared  me  in  the  face,  the  doctrine  of  the  Mar- 
row concerning  the  gift  and  grant ;  and  that  Scripture,  1  John  v,  11,  'And  this  is 
the  record,  that  God  hath  given  to  us  eternal  life,  and  this  life  is  in  his  Son ;'  ac- 
cordingly understood,  that  God  hath  given  to  us  mankind-sinners,  and  to  me  in 
particular,  eternal  life,  &c.,  whereby  it  is  lawful  for  me  to  take  possession  of  it  as 
my  own ;  was  the  sweet  and  comfortable  prop  of  my  soul,  believing  it  and  claim- 
ing it  accordingly." 

Memoirs  of  Mr.  Thmnas  Boston ^  page  S7Q. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  311 

as  he  justly  observes,  ought  to  be  avoided,  as  well  as  Neonomian 
doctrine.*  For  my  own  part,  I  hold  Antinomianism  to  be  most 
abominable  ;  whether  it  be  more  gross,  such  as  that  of  the  Libertines 
against  whom  Calvin  wrote  ;  or  more  refined,  as  that  of  Eaton,  Salt- 
marsh  and  others,  in  the  seventeenth  century,  who  were  refuted  by 
Burgess,  Rutherford  and  others.  They  are  justly  called  Antino- 
mians,  who  deny  that  christians  ought  to  have  any  regard  to  the  holy 
law  of  God,  as  the  rule  of  their  conduct;  or  that  they  ought  to  mourn 
for  their  sins  before  God. 

§  31.  RuF,  I  cordially  agree  with  your  opinion  of  real  Antinomian- 
ism. All  those,  however,  that  have  been  called  Antinomians,  ought 
not  to  be  censured  indiscriminately.  Hornbeck  observes,  that  some 
of  them  did  not  recede  so  much  from  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed 
Churches,  as  from  the  common  method  of  teaching  it ;  and  that  they 
neglected  to  observe,  first,  that  obeying  God,  as  influenced  by  the 
Spirit  of  Christ,  and  obeying  him  from  a  regard  to  the  authority  of 
his  law,  consist  well  together  ;  and  ought  not  to  be  separated  :  and, 
secondly,  that  it  is  one  thing  to  make  good  works  the  foundation  of 
the  faith  and  hope  of  our  salvation ;  it  is  another  thing  to  consider 
good  works  as  fruits  and  evidences  of  those  graces  serving  to  ascer- 
tain their  sincerity.  They  were  right  in  denying  the  former,  and 
wrong  in  denying  the  latter,  f  At  the  same  time,  what  the  Associate 
Presbytery  mention,  in  the  introduction  to  their  act  concerning  the  doc- 
trine of  grace,  must  be  acknowledged  to  be  a  lamentable  fact,  viz., 
That  the  noise  raised  by  some  ministers  against  such  as  were  faithful 
preachers  of  the  doctrine  of  grace,  as  if  they  had  been  teachers  of 
Antinomianism,  occasioned  the  truths  of  the  gospel  to  be  every  where 
evil  spoken  of.  Mr.  Robert  Trail,  in  his  excellent  letter  concerning 
the  doctrine  of  justification  through  the  imputed  righteousness  of  Je- 
sus Christ,  intimates,  that  he  and  other  ministers,  who  preached  that 
doctrine,  were  called  Antinomians.  Because,  in  the  Marrow  of  Mod- 
ern Divinity,  it  is  stated  as  one  of  the  differences  between  the  law  or 
covenant  of  works  and  the  law  of  Christ,  that  the  former  says,  Do 
this  fcr  life  ;  but  the  latter  says,  Do  this  from  life  :  the  celebrated 
Mr.  Baxter  most  unjustly  represents  the  author  of  that  treatise  as  an 
Antinomian,  and  his  doctrine  as  so  foully  erroneous,  that,  if  reduced 
to  practice,  it  will  be  the  damnation  of  the  practisers.  J  Certain  pas- 
sages of  the  same  book  were  condemned  as  Antinomian  errors,  by  an 
act  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  passed  in 
1720  ;  by  which  act  a  deep  wound  was  given  to  several  precious  doc- 
trines of  the  gospel ;  as  is  shown  by  the  Associate  Presbytery,  in 
their  act  concerning  the  doctrine  of  grace. 

*  Imp.  Test.,  pages  218, 219. 

t  Vide  Hombeckii  Summam  Controver.,  lib.  x.,  pages  701—733. 

X  The  Saints'  Everlasting  Rest,  part  i.,  chap.  1st,  sect.  7. 


312  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

When  Mr.  "Willison  said,  that  some  of  the  assertions  in  that  act 
of  the  Associate  Presbytery  are  loose  and  unguarded,  and  even  bor- 
dering on  Antinomianism,  he  ought  to  have  pointed  out  these  asser- 
tions. It  was  the  more  necessary,  that  he  should  have  done  so,  that 
the  members  of  the  presbytery,  as  he  knew,  were  well  entitled  to 
the  character  of  able  and  judicious  divines,  who  were  far  from  be- 
ing apt  to  use  loose  and  unguarded  expressions  on  any  occasion  ^ 
but  especially  in  a  judicial  deed,  solemnly  passed  in  the  mane  of  the 
Lord  Jesus. 

§  82.  Alex.  This  act  takes  notice  of  a  proposition,  that  had  been 
agreed  on  by  the  Presbytery  of  Auchterarder  ;  viz.,  "  That  it  is  not 
orthodox  to  teach,  that  we  must  forsake  sin  in  order  to  our  coming 
to  Christ,  and  to  our  being  instated  in  the  covenant  with  God." 
That  presbytery,  it  seems,  required  satisfaction  concerning  this  pro- 
position, from  the  young  men  whom  they  took  on  trial  for  the  minis- 
try. One  of  these  candidates,  having  refused  to  comply  with  the 
presbytery's  requisition,  appealed  to  the  General  Assembly.  The 
Assembly  gave  their  judgment  in  the  young  man's  favor. 

RuF.  Yes,  Alexander ;  that  court  in  the  year  1717,  on  the  same 
day  on  which  they  dismissed  the  process  against  Professor  Simson 
without  any  formal  censure,  condemned,  in  the  strongest  terms,  the 
proposition  you  have  mentioned,  declaring  their  abhorrence  of  it  as 
unsound  and  most  detestable. 

Alex.  I  suppose  they  judged  it  to  be  an  Antinomian  tenet. 

RuF.  The  judicious  Mr.  Boston,  who  was  present  at  that  Assem- 
bly, says  in  his  Memoirs,  that  he  believed  the  proposition  to  be  truth ; 
and  that  he  bitterly  regretted  that  he  had  not  spoken  in  its  defence, 
when  it  came  before  the  Assembly.  "  I  was  obliged,"  says  he,  "  to 
speak  on  it  and  exonor  my  conscience,  when  it  was  out  of  season,  at 
the  reading  of  the  minutes." 

According  to  this  act  of  Assembly,  it  would  be  sound  doctrine  to 
teach,  That  a  sinner  must  forsake  his  sin  in  order  to  his  coming  to 
Christ;  a  position  which  the  Associate  Presbytery,  condemns  for 
several  reasons. 

1st,  Because,  although  it  is  the  unquestionable  duty  of  the  crea- 
ture to  forsake  and  abandon  whatever  is  forbidden  by  the  law  of  his 
Creator ;  yet,  upon  the  revelation  of  the  grace  of  God  in  the  promise 
of  the  gospel,  it  is  plain  that  the  first  and  leading  duty  required  in 
the  law  is  to  believe  that  report ;  for  "without  faith  it  is  impossible 
to  please  God."  "He  that  believeth  on  the  Son,  hath  everlasting 
life  ;  he  that  believeth  not  the  Son  shall  not  see  life,  but  the  wrath 
of  God  abideth  on  him. "  Heb.  xi.  6;  John  iii.  36.  Hence  it  follows, 
that,  according  to  the  Scripture,  every  act  of  the  soul,  as  performed 
by  a  person  before  Saving  Faith,  or  coming  to  Christ,  is  sin  ;  and 
therefore  no  such  act  can  be  a  forsaking  of  sin. 

2d,  Because  our  forsaking  of  sin,  (being  a  branch  of  true  repen- 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  313 

tance,  importing  purification  of  heart  and  the  exercise  of  love,  which 
is  a  fulfilling  of  the  law)  is  in  Scripture  expressly  declared  to  be  a 
fruit  of  Faith  ;  which  faith  is  the  soul's  coming  to  Christ ;  Gal.  v.  6; 
Acts  iii.  26;  v.  31;  xv.  9;  Zechar.  xii.  10;  Isai.  xlv.  22.  To  main- 
tain, that  we  must  forsake  sin  in  order  to  our  coming  to  Christ  is  as 
much  as  to  say,  that  we  must  have  repentance,  love  and  purity  of 
heart  in  order  to  our  believing  in  Christ ;  that  we  must  repent  of  our 
sins  in  order  to  our  coming  to  him  who  is  exalted  to  give  repentance 
as  well  as  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  Whereas  the  Spirit  of  God  has 
declared,  "that  God,  having  raised  up  his  Son  Jesus,  hath  sent  him 
to  bless  us  in  turning  away  every  one  of  us  from  his  iniquity;"  and 
that  sinners  are  called  and  invited  to  come  and  look  to  Christ  for  sal- 
vation both  from  sin  and  wrath ;  and  that  without  regard  to  any 
previous  qualification  in  themselves.  This  coming  is  indeed  incon- 
sistent with  a  resolution  to  go  on  in  sin ;  yet  it  is  plain  no  sinner 
can  wash  himself  before  he  come  to  the  fountain  opened  for  sin  and 
uncleanness.  It  is  vain  to  pretend  to  any  gracious,  evangelical  or 
acceptable  act,  but  by  virtue  of  grace  and  strength  derived  from 
Christ ;  or  until  the  soul  come  to  Christ,  and  be  united  to  him  as  the 
living  root  and  fountain  of  all  gracious  influence.  To  teach  that  we 
must  be  holy  or  so  and  so  qualified,  in  order  to  our  coming  to  Christ 
and  having  vital  union  with  him,  is  the  very  soul  of  Arminian  and 
Neonomian  doctrine. 

3rd,  Because,  while  the  forsaking  of  sin  is  no  small  part  of  conver- 
sion, this  act  of  the  Assembly  evidently  tends  to  exalt  man's  natural 
powers  and  his  own  ability  to  convert  himself  or  prepare  himself 
thereto  :  and  thus  it  greatly  favors  the  Pelagian  doctrine  on  this 
head;  expressly  contrary  to  scripture,  which  declares,  that  we  are 
dead  in  trespasses  and  sins  ;  without  strength  ;  yea,  that  our  mind  is 
enmity  against  God. 

In  opposition  to  this  act  of  the  Assembly,  the  Associate  Presbytery 
asserted  and  declared,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  all,  upon  the  revelation  of 
Christ  in  the  gospel,  instantly,  without  looking  for  any  previous  qual- 
ifications in  themselves,  to  believe  in  him  for  salvation  both  from  sin 
and  wrath ;  that,  in  so  doing,  only,  they  will  be  made,  in  a  gospel 
manner,  to  mourn  for  sin,  forsake  it,  and  live  unto  righteousness  ;  and 
that  it  is  not  possible  for  any  man  to  forsake  sin  or  actually  to  exer- 
cise gospel  repentance,  till  he  is  determined  and  enabled  by  the  pow- 
er of  the  Spirit  of  Faith,  to  look  or  come  to  Christ,  the  Prince  and 
Saviour  exalted  to  give  repentance  and  the  forgiveness  of  sin. 

§  33.  Alex.  With  regard  to  the  act  of  the  Assembly  condemning 
several  passages  of  the  Marrow  of  Modem  Divinity,  Mr.  Willison 
gays,  the  occasion  of  it  was,  a  great  noise  that  was  made  about  some 
niinisters,  who  were  said  to  be  bringing  in  a  new  scheme  of  doctrine  ; 
because,  in  their  sermons,  they  disused  and  censured  several  old  ap- 
proved words  and  phrases  as  too  legal,  and  affected  some  new  modes 


314  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

of  speaking ;  and  because  they  recommend  the  Marrow  to  their  peo- 
ple. This  book,  says  Mr.  Willison,  was  laid  before  the  Assem-, 
bly  in  1720,  as  containing  gross  Antinomian  errors ;  and,  several 
propositions  having  been  excerpted  from  it  by  a  committee,  the  As- 
sembly proceeded  in  a  hurry  to  pass  a  condemnatory  act  against  them 
all  in  cumulo.^ 

RuF.  The  Associate  Presbytery  observes,  that,  while  the  Arminian 
doctrine,  having  been  condemned  by  the  Synod  of  Dort,  and  by  all  the 
divines  of  any  reputation  for  soundness  in  the  faith,  and  being  so  di- 
rectly contrary  to  the  scripture  doctrine  contained  in  the  Confessions 
of  the  Reformed  Churches,  few  of  the  more  serious  and  sober  were 
misled  by  it ;  till  at  length  a  more  refined  and  consequently  a  more 
dangerous  scheme  of  Arminianism  was  vented  in  England,  especially 
by  Mr.  Richard  Baxter ;  a  scheme,  which,  in  the  manner  in  which  it 
was  expressed,  came  nearer  to  the  legal  terms  which  had  been  used, 
for  some  time  before,  in  explaining  gospel  truths  by  divines  of  reputa- 
tion for  orthodoxy  ;  and  therefore  was  more  generally  received  by  those 
of  the  Presbyterian  persuasion  in  England  ;  and  gradually  crept  into 
many  pulpits  in  Scotland,  f  Hence  various  phrases,  which  had  not 
been  much  used  by  Calvin,  Beza,  and  other  reformers  in  the  sixteenth 
century,  but  which  sometimes  occur  in  the  writings  of  their  successors 
in  the  next  century,  such  as  that  the  covenant  of  grace  is  conditional 
to  us ;  that  christians  are  in  a  state  of  probation ;  that  there  are  cer- 
tain preparations  which  men  ought  to  seek  in  order  to  their  coming  to 
Christ ;  were  so  much  abused  by  the  Arminians  and  Neonomians,  that 
it  became  necessary  either  to  lay  aside  the  use  of  them,  or  to  give 
such  definitions  of  them  as  would  scarcely  appear  correct,  being  rather 
adapted  to  the  application  of  them  in  the  discourses  of  sound  divines, 
than  suggested  by  the  most  proper  use  of  the  words.  With  regard 
to  sonie  of  these  phrases,  the  ministers,  whom  Mr.  Willison  alludes 
to,  chose  to  follow  the  former  method,  rather  than  the  latter.  This 
they  did,  not  from  caprice,  nor  from  any  indication  to  novelty ;  but 
because  they  found,  that,  as  the  case  was  circumstanced,  the  use  of 
them,  in  stating  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel,  tended  to  error  and  confusion, 
rather  than  to  that  manifestation  of  the  truth  to  every  man's  con- 
science, which  is  the  aim  and  study  of  faithful  ministers ;  and  that, 
therefore,  it  appeared  to  be  their  duty  to  decline  the  use  of  them.  To 
any  candid  person,  who  reads  the  Marrow  with  Mr.  Boston's  notes, 
and  the  answers  to  the  twelve  queries  proposed  by  the  commission  of 
the  General  Assembly;  and  who  is  also  acquainted  with  the  doctrine 
of  our  first  reformers,  it  must  be  evident,  that  no  new  doctrine  was 
advanced,  nor  even  any  novelty  in  the  manner  of  expressing  it,  was 
affected  by  these  ministers. 

*  Impartial  Testimony,  page  88. 

t  See  the  Introduction  to  the  Act  concerning  the  doctrine  of  grace. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  315 

It  is  lamentable,  indeed,  to  find  any  good  man  offering  it  as  an  ex- 
cnse  for  an  unjust  act  of  the  General  Assembly,  that  it  was  done  in  a 
hurry;  while  that  court  was  obstinate  m  refusing  to  repeal  it. 

8  34  Alex  The  act  of  the  General  Assembly,  m  1720,  charges 
the  Marrow  with  asserting  an  uniyersal  redemption  as  to  purchase 

RUF  The  Associate  Presbytery  show,  that  there  is  no  ground  for 
brino-ino- that  charge  against  the  Marrow;  since  it  is  manifestly  the 
des  I  of  ttie  whole^reatise  to  teach,  in  opposition  to  the  Arminmns, 
that  Christ  in  his  mediatorial  undertaking,  represented  the  elect  only, 
and  obeyed  and  suffered  for  none  else.  It  is  evident,  that  the  passa- 
ges of  the  MaiTow  quoted  by  the  Assembly,  considered  m  connection 
luh  the  design  of  tliose  pari  of  that  treatise  where  they  occur,  will 
not  bear  the  construction  put  upon  them  in  that  act  „,f-. 

The  first  is  a  passage  of  Luther  on  the  epistle  to  the  G^'jlatians^ 
..  Then  came  the  law,  Is  it  is  the  covenant  of  works,  and  said  I  tod 
him  namely  Jesus  Christ,  a  sinner,  yea,  such  an  one  as  hath  taken 
upon  Zi  the  sins  of  all  men."    These  words,  as  they  are  used  in 

TMarrow.must  be  understood  ^c-'"'!^"?  \°  *?  S"  %n  1  ac: 
"  He  put  himself  in  the  room  and  place  of  all  the  faithful .  —and  ac 
cofdinfto  the  following  words  :-"  And  .««  the  law  set  upon  hm^ 
and  kifled  him ;  and  by  this  means  was  the  justice  of  God  fully  satis- 
fied, his  wrath  appeased,  and  all  true  believers  acquitted  from  all 

*fhf  words  of  the  next  passage  condemned  ^  ^^^A'^^d  I'ant 
which  are  these  •  "  God  the  Father  has  made  a  deed  of  gift  and  giant 
^''^1  ^iS  that  whosoever  of  them  all  shall  believe  in  h^^ 

shall  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  1^^  :  \™Ply  ^"l^f^V  f  cS 
is  a  sufficiency  of  intrinsic  value  or  merit  in  the  sacrifice  ot  Lhnst 
for  the  reiS  of  all  legal  bars  that  stand  in  the  Wof-^-t 
vation;  and  that  Christ  crucified  is  the  ordinance  of  God  foi  salva 
tio.  to  all  mankind;  in  the  use  of  which  only  they  can  be  saved 
and  consequently,  that  there  is  a  full  warrant  to  proclaim  the  glad 
tr^igs  of'salvat'ion  through  Christ  crucified  to  all  *!>;  «hddren  ^ 
Adam  ;  and  for  each  of  them  to  believe  them  with  apphcation  to  him- 

^^'iTtrS^age  taken  from  Mr.  P-ston's  treatise  c^f^tL  Go 
and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature  under  heaven  ^f*  '^  ^o^'^"'! 
tell  every  man  without  exception,  that  here  is  good  news  foj Jim 
C lirist  is  dead  for  him  :  the  obvious  meaning  is  Tell  every  7n*at 
Christ  is  dead,  is  a  crucified  Christ,  for  him  *<> /''■"%to„??'^,Se 
on  •  even  as  it  might  have  been  said  to  the  manslayer  of  old,  that  the 
eit;  of  refuge  was  Vepared  and  open  for  him  to  flee  to,  that  he  might 

^^The  design  of  the  Marrow  here  is  to  teach,  that  there  is  a  sufficient 
*  Marrow  of  Modern  Divinity,  chap.  ii. 


316  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS 

ground  in  the  gospel  for  every  man  to  be  persuaded,  that  Christ  is  the 
gift  of  God  for  salvation  to  him  in  particular.  This  is  quite  contrary 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  Arminians  ;  who  deny,  that  there  is  any  ground 
in  the  free  offer  of  the  gospel  for  a  person's  having  any  persuasion  of 
his  own  salvation  in  particular. 

Since,  then,  it  appears,  that  the  passages  of  the  Marrow,  quoted  in 
the  Assembly's  act,  cannot  be  understood  as  favoring  universal  re- 
demption as  to  purchase,  it  will  be  obvious,  that,|^under  the  misapplied 
title  of  universal  redemption  as  to  purchase,  the  Assembly  condemned 
the  universal  and  unlimited  offer  of  Christ  to  mankind  sinners  as  such. 
The  revelation  of  the  Divine  will  in  the  world,  making  a  gift  of  Christ 
to  the  world  of  mankind,  and  the  sovereign  grace,  that  has  made  this 
grant  or  deed  of  gift,  not  to  devils,  but  to  men,  are  much  obscured,  if 
not  denied,  by  the  acts  of  the  Assembly  condemning  some  passages 
in  the  Marrow  on  this  head. 

Alex.  Nobody  denies,  that  Christ  and  his  salvation  are  freely  of- 
fered to  the  hearers  of  the  gospel.  But  the  Associate  Presbytery  and 
their  followers  call  the  gospel  a  deed  of  gift  and  grant,  a  promise, 
and  even  an  absolute  promise  of  Christ  and  of  eternal  life  in  him. 
This  grant  or  promise,  they  say,  is  directed  to  sinners  of  mankind  in- 
definitely in  such  a  manner,  as  gives  them  a  right  or  warrant  to  claim 
the  Lord  Jesus  as  their  own  Saviour  :  and  their  preachers  use  to  call 
their  hearers  to  claim  him  on  that  ground.  Is  not  this,  as  Mr.  Willi- 
son  says,  too  loose  and  unguarded  ?  What  reasons  do  they  give  for 
such  a  way  of  preaching  ? 

RuF.  They  have  many  good  reasons.  They  observe,  that  the  scrip* 
ture  expressly  asserts,  "  that  a  man  can  receive  nothing,  except  it  be 
given  him  from  heaven,"  John  iii.  2t.  and  therefore  the  receiving  of 
Christ  necessarily  presupposes  a  giving  of  him  ;  that  is  a  revelation 
of  him  in  the  word,  affording  gospel-hearers  as  such  a  warrant  to  re- 
ceive him.  This  grant  or  deed  of  gift,  made  to  all  mankind  in  the 
word,  is  the  foundation  of  our  faitli ;  the  ground  and  warrant,  that 
ministers  have,  for  preaching  the  gospel,  and  for  making  a  full,  free, 
and  unhampered  offer  of  Christ,  of  his  righteousness  and  salvation  to 
all,  as  Divine  Providence  affords  them  opportunity. 

We  have  this  grant  in  the  express  words  of  scripture.  Christ  says ; 
"  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that 
whosoever  believeth  on  him,  should  not  perish  but  have  everlasting 
life."  John  iii,  16.  "  My  Father  giveth  you  the  true  bread  from 
heaven  ;"  a  word  that  is  addressed  to  persons  to  whom  he  says  at  the 
same  time,  "  Ye  believe  not,  "  John  vi.  32  and  36,  "  He  that  be- 
lieveth not  God,  hath  made  him  a  liar  ;  because  he  believeth  not  the 
record,  or  testimony,  which  he  gave  concerning  his  Son."  Which 
testimony  is  this,  '*'  that  he  hath  given  to  us  eternal  life,  and  this  life 
is  in  his  Son,"  John  v.  10,  11.  According  to  these  texts,  although 
the  purchase  and  application  of  redemption  be  peculiar  to  the  elect ; 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  317 

yet  the  warrant  to  receive  Christ  is  common  to  all,  as  they  are  sinful 
men  and  women  of  Adam's  family  :  "  Unto  you,  0  men,  I  call,  and  my 
voice  is  to  the  sons  of  man,"  Pro  v.  viii.  4. 

The  giving  mentioned  in  these  texts  is  not  to  be  understood  of  a 
giving  unto  possession,  which  is  peculiar  to  them  who  believe.  But 
it  is  such  a  giving  to  sinners  by  way  of  offer,  as  warrants  them  to  re- 
ceive the  gift,  or  to  take  possession  of  it.  As  it  behooved  the  manna 
to  be  given  or  rained  down,  before  it  could  be  tasted  or  fed  upon ;  so 
God's  giving  his  only  begotten  Son  in  the  gospel  is  necessary  in  or- 
der to  men's  believing  on  him,  that  they  may  not  perish,  but  have 
everlasting  life.  The  persons,  to  whom  this  grant  or  offer  is  made, 
are  not  the  elect  only,  but  mankind  considered  as  lost.  For  such  is 
the  record  of  God,  that  it  warrants  all  to  believe  on  the  Son  of  God. 
But  the  offer  of  a  gift  to  a  certain  select  company  of  men  can  never 
be  a  warrant  for  all  men  to  receive  it  or  take  possession  of  it.  Men's 
unbelief  lies  in  their  not  believing  this  record,  viz.,  "  that  God  hath 
given  to  us  eternal  life. "  Unbelief  doth  not  consist  in  a  mere  disbe- 
lieving of  this  proposition,  that  God  hath  given  eternal  life  to  the 
elect ;  for  of  this  the  most  despairing  unbeliever  may  be  persuaded  ; 
and  their  belief  of  it  adds  to  their  torment.  But  their  unbelief  lies  in 
this,  that  they  make  him  a  liar,  in  their  not  believing  the  record  of 
God,  even  that  he  hath  given  to  them  eternal  life  in  his  Son  Jesus 
■  Christ.  Hereby  they  deny  the  faithfulness  of  God  in  that  record  ;  as 
if  he  were  not  in  earnest  in  the  gift  which  he  makes  of  Christ  to  sin- 
ners as  such  in  the  gospel.  They  slight  and  despise  the  authority  of 
the  God  of  grace,  commanding  them  to  give  the  answer  of  a  particu- 
lar applying  faith  to  the  offer  and  call  of  his  word.  They  deservedly 
perish  in  unbelief;  since  the  kingdom  and  gift  of  God  was  brought 
near  to  them  in  the  gospel,  and  they  would  not  receive  it ;  but  treat- 
ed it  with  contempt. 

This  grant  of  Christ,  of  his  righteousness  and  salvation,  is  plainly 
set  forth  in  these  passages  of  scripture  which  represents  the  gospel  as 
a  promise  directed  to  all  the  hearers  of  the  word.  Acts  ii.  39.  "  The 
promise  is  to  you  and  to  your  children  and  to  all  that  are  far  off,  and 
to  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call ;"  to  as  many  as  he  shall 
call  in  the  same  manner  in  which  he  was  now  calling  all  Peter's  hear- 
ers, that  is,  by  the  outward  call  of  the  word.  Another  text  is  that  in 
Heb.  iv.  1,  2.  "  Let  us  fear,  lest  a  promise  being  left  us  of  entering 
into  his  rest,  any  of  you  should  seem  to  come  short  of  it ;  for  to  us 
was  the  gospel  preached  as  well  as  unto  them."  Here  it  is  evident, 
from  the  connecting  particle /or  in  verse  2d,  that  what  is  called  the 
gospel  or  good  news,  is  the  promise  of  God's  rest  mentioned  in  verse 
1st.  Our  privilege,  in  having  the  promise  of  the  heavenly  rest  left  or 
directed  to  us  in  the  gospel,  is  similar  to  that  of  the  Israelites  in  hav- 
ing had  the  promise  of  a  temporal  rest  in  the  land  of  Canaan  given  to 
them ;  particularly  in  this  respect,  that  we  are  liable  through  unbelief 


318  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

to  fall  short  of  the  good  of  the  promise,  as  they  fell  short  of  it.  This 
is  called  an  absolute  promise,  in  opposition  to  the  promise  of  the  cov- 
enant of  works  ;  which  was  properly  conditional ;  and  in  opposition 
to  the  scheme  of  the  Arminians  and  Mr.  Baxter  formerly  mentioned. 
If  you  allow  the  new  covenant  to  be  properly  conditional  to  us,  you 
allow  it  to  be  in  effect  a  covenant  of  works  ;  you  adhere  to  the  way 
of  doing  for  life  ;  whether  the  condition  be  faith  and  repentance,  or 
sincere  obedience,  or  faith  only.  Whereas  the  covenant  of  grace  is 
exhibited  to  sinners  in  free  promises  of  justification  and  salvation  for 
the  sake  of  him,  whose  name  is  THE  LORD  OUR  RIGHTEOUS- 
NESS :  and  this  exhibition  of  the  new  covenant  is  the  gospel  of  the 
grace  of  God.  Faith  itself  is  a  blessing  contained  in  the  gospel  pro- 
mise ;  and  therefore,  though  it  be  a  means  of  receiving  the  promise, 
and  of  our  obtaining  the  possession  of  other  promised  blessings,  yet 
it  is  not,  in  any  proper  sense,  the  condition  of  the  promise,  or  the 
ground  of  our  right  or  title  to  the  promised  blessings. 

Alex.  How  is  it  consistent  with  the  truth  and  faithfulness  of  God, 
for  him  to  direct  absolute  promises  of  eternal  life  to  those  sinners,  who 
according  to  his  purpose  are  never  to  obtain  it  ? 

RuF.  The  Seceders  often  say.  These  promises  are  to  be  considered 
two  ways  ;  either  as  they  were  made  to  Christ  in  the  secret  transaction 
of  the  everlasting  covenant  between  the  Father  and  him,  to  be,  ac- 
cording to  God's  unchangeable  decree,  completely  fulfilled  in  due  time 
to  all  those  who  were  given  to  Christ ;  or  as  they  are  directed  to  sin- 
ners indefinitely  in  the  gospel  dispensation. 

In  the  last  consideration  of  these  promises,  they  are  viewed  as  ex- 
pressive of  God's  free  offer  to  do  according  to  the  tenor  of  them  to 
every  one  who  embraces  them  by  faith.  Hence,  it  appears  that  ac- 
cording to  the  doctrine  of  Seceders  on  this  head,  these  promises,  as 
they  are  exhibited  in  the  gospel  dispensation,  in  connection  with  the 
call  to  believe  them,  or  confide  in  them,  belong  to  the  revelation  of 
God's  will,  with  regard  to  the  duty  of  sinners  under  that  dispensation. 
So  that  your  objection  is  just  the  same  with  that  of  the  Arminians, 
who  represent  God's  calling  men  to  embrace  the  offer  of  grace  and 
salvation,  as  inconsistent  with  his  appointment  of  many  of  them  in  his 
decree  to  everlasting  ruin.  We  answer  this  objection  by  observing 
that  in  the  gospel  dispensation,  there  is  a  certain  and  infallible  con- 
nection declared,  not  between  men's  external  privilege  under  that  dis- 
pensation, or  any  efforts  of  their  natural  ability  or  free  will,  and  their 
eventual  attainment  of  any  spiritual  and  saving  blessing  which  God 
hath  promised  in  the  gospel ;  but  between  their  real  attainment  of 
one  of  these  blessings  and  their  attainment  in  due  time  of  all  the  rest. 
God's  dealing  with  men  in  the  gpspel  dispensation  says,  That  he  sin- 
cerely delights  in  the  work  of  faith  as  agreeable  to  his  commanding 
will ;  and  in  its  connection  with  all  the  other  parts  of  the  promised 
salvation ;  but  does  not  at  all  say  of  any  person,  while  he  continues 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  319 

in  his  natural  state,  that  it  is  God's  purpose  to  give  him  in  the  event 
feith  or  salvation.  I  am  convinced,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Associ- 
ate Presbytery  on  this  head  is  the  same  with  that  of  all  true  Calvin- 
ists  in  opposition  to  the  Arminian  error. 

The  fceceders  allow  the  exhibition  of  Christ,  of  his  righteousness 
and  salvation  in  the  gospel  of  perishing  sinners,  to  be  an  offer  ;  but 
in  order  to  signify  that  this  offer  is  most  free,without  money  and  with- 
out price,  without  any  condition  of  moral  good  to  be  found  in  us,  or 
done  by  us,  iu  order  to  our  belief  or  acceptance  of  it,  they  often 
choose  to  call  it,  agreeable  to  the  language  of  scripture,  an  uncondi- 
tional promise,  a  free  gift  or  grant. 

But  another  reason  why  the  Associate  Presbytery  call  the  gospel 
offer  a  grant  or  promise  of  the  righteousness  and  salvation  of  Christ 
is,  the  common  interest,  which  the  scripture  represents  sinners  of  man- 
kind as  having  in  him.  They  have  a  common  interest  in  Christ, which 
the  fallen  angels  have  not,  it  being  warrantable  for  them,  and  not  for 
the  fallen  angels,  to  take  possession  of  Christ  and  his  whole  salvation. 
Hence,  he  is  called  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  and  his  salvation  is 
termed  a  common  salvation.  Jonah,  in  his  prayer,  said,  "They  that 
observe  lying  vanities,  forsake  their  own  mercy,"  Jonah  ii.  9.  The 
persons  here  spoken  of,  have  no  special  or  saving  interest  in  Christ, 
whom  they  neglect  for  the  sake  of  lying  vanities  3  but  they  have  a 
common  interest  in  him  as  their  own  mercy.  The  evangelist  John 
says  of  Christ,  ''  He  came  to  his  own,  and  his  own  received  him  not.'' 
Relations  are  mutual ;  and  therefore,  as  they  to  whom  Christ  came, 
were  his  own,  so  he  was  their  own :  they  had  a  common  and  external 
though  not  a  special  and  saving  interest  in  him ;  while  they  did  not 
receive  him.  To  the  same  purpose,  is  the  gracious  declaration  in  the 
preface  to  the  ten  commandments,  so  often  repeated  in  the  books  of 
Moses,  and  in  other  places  of  the  Old  Testament,  "  I  am  the  Lord 
thy  God. "  The  Lord  said  so  to  every  person  in  the  camp  of  Israel  -, 
and  he  is  now  saying  so  to  every  person  in  the  visible  church.  Thus 
the  gospel  offer  is  called  a  free  grant  of  the  Saviour,  as  it  gives  those 
to  whom  it  is  made,  common  interest  in  him  ;  which  is  distinct  from, 
and  opposite  to,  that  special  and  skiving  interest  in  him,  which  is  at- 
tained by  actual  believing  in  him. 

In  fine,  the  Associate  Presbytery  represented  the  gospel  offer  as  a 
free  grant  and  promise  of  Christ  and  his  salvation  ;.  because  it  is  a 
proposal  of  Christ  and  his  salvation  to  be  received,  not  by  working 
or  performing  any  condition,  but  by  believing  ;  and,  therefore,  the 
matter  of  the  gospel  offer  must  be  something  to  be  believed  ;  and 
something  which  a  person  cannot  truly  believe  without  an  application 
of  it  to  himself:  and  such  is  the  free  grant  and  promise  of  Christ,  now 
mentioned. 

The  tenets,  rejected  and  condemned  by  the  Associate  Presbytery 
on  this  head,  are  these  two  :  1 .  That  the  free,  unlimited  and  univer- 


320  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

sal  offer  ol  Christ  in  the  gospel,  to  sinners  of  mankind  as  such,  is  in- 
consistent with  particular  redemption  ;  or  that  God  the  Father's  mak- 
ing a  deed  of  gift  to  all  mankind,  importing,  that  whosoever  of  them 
all  shall  believe  on  his  Son,  shall  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life, 
infers  an  universal  atonement,  or  redemption  as  to  purchase.  2. 
That  this  grant  or  offer  is  made  to  the  elect  only,  or  to  such  as  have 
previous  qualifications  recommending  them  above  others. 

§  35.  Alex.  Another  charge  in  the  act  of  the  Assembly  against 
the  Marrow,  is,  that  it  defines  saving  faith,  as  it  corresponds  with  the 
gospel,  to  be  a  man's  persuasion,  that  Christ  is  his ;  and  that  whoso- 
ever has  not  that  persuasion,  has  not  answered  the  gospel  call,  nor  is 
a  true  believer.  This  is  condemned  by  the  Assembly,  as  contrary  to 
those  passages  of  scripture  and  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  which 
teach,  that  assurance  is  not  of  the  essence  of  faith. 

RuF.  The  Associate  Presbytery  observes,  that  it  will  be  obvious 
to  any  one,  who  shall  carefully  consider  the  places  of  scripture  and 
passages  of  our  Confession  and  Larger  Catechism,  quoted  by  the  As- 
sembly, that  they  speak  of  the  assurance  of  sense  or  reflection ;  that 
is,  the  certain  knowledge  which  persons  may  attain  of  their  having  al- 
ready believed,  and  of  their  being  already  in  a  state  of  grace,  found- 
ed on  the  evidence  of  the  marks  given  of  that  state  in  the  word  of 
God.  But  this  assurance  of  sense  is  very  different  from  the  assur- 
ance which  the  Marrow  represents  as  belonging  to  the  nature  of  jus- 
tifying faith.  It  is  one  thing  to  be  assured,  that  Christ  is  ours,  that 
his  righteousness  and  salvation  are  ours,  on  the  single  ground  of  the 
free  promise  of  the  gospel  addressed  to  sinners ;  an  assurance  which 
belongs  to  the  direct  act  of  saving  faith  wrought  in  the  hearts  by  the 
Holy  Spirit.  It  is  another  thing  to  be  assured  that  Christ  and  his 
righteousness  are  ours,  and  his  salvation  ours,  because  we  have  found 
upon  impartial  self-examination,  that  we  have  the  scriptural  charac- 
acters  of  true  believers,  or  of  those  that  are  Christ's.  This  is  what 
the  Associate  Presbytery  call  the  assurance  of  sense.  It  is  by  the  di- 
rect act  of  faith  that  we  know,  that  in  the  gospel  God  speaks  pardon, 
peace  and  salvation  to  our  souls,  through  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ : 
but  it  is  by  spiritual  sense  and  reflection,  that  we  come  to  know,  that 
he  has  actually  begun  that  good  work  which  he  hath  promised  to  ful- 
fill to  us. 

The  Associate  Presbytery  agreed  with  the  Marrow  in  defining  sa- 
ving faith  to  be  a  person's  real  persuasion,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  his ; 
that  he  shall  have  life  and  salvation  by  Christ ;  and  that  whatsoever 
Christ  did  for  the  redemption  of  mankind,  he  did  it  for  him. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  here  asserted  that  there  is  in  justifying  faith 
a  person's  real  persuasion,  "that  Christ  is  his  in  particular."  This  is 
evident,  from  the  consideration  of  the  nature  of  justifying  faith  as 
effectual  to  the  relief  of  the  sinner  who  finds  himself  in  particular  bound 
under  the  curse.     A  man  having  only  a  general  faith  of  the  law,  will 


.  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  321 

easily  rest  in  a  general  faith  of  the  gospel,  or  of  Christ's  willingness 
and  ability  to  save  sinners,  or  to  save  them  that  come  to  him.  But 
when  one  is  brought  to  a  faith  of  the  law,  as  directed  to,  and  condemn- 
ing him  in  particular;  his  conscience  cannot  be  satisfied,  nor  will  it 
absolve  him,  or  be  purged  from  guilt,  without  a  special  faith  of  the 
gospel,  or  of  the  mercy  of  God  in  Christ,  as  reaching  him  in  particu- 
lar. Nor  can  a  person's  belief  of  the  gospel  be  answerable  to  it,  as 
it  is  a  free  grant  of  a  Saviour,  unless  it  be  such  a  belief  as  includes  a 
person's  persuasion,  that  in  virtue  of  that  grant,  he  is  warranted  to 
take  the  Saviour  to  himself  as  his  Saviour  in  particular.  A  person's 
faith  is  not  answerable  to  the  name  of  Christ  proclaimed  in  the  gospel 
without  this  appropriating  persuasion.  The  Lord  says  to  the  whole 
visible  church,  1  am  the  Lord  your  Grod  :  his  name  is  the  Lord  our 
righteousness  ;  a  light  to  the  Gentiles ;  salvation  unto  the  ends  of  the 
earth.  The  language  of  a  person's  faith  corresponding  to  the  Lord's 
name  thus  proclaimed,  must  be,  He  is  the  Lord  my  righteousness,  my 
light,  my  salvation,  my  God,  If  we  have  nothing  of  this  persuasion, 
we  refuse  to  own  him  by  that  name  by  which  he  has  revealed  himself 
to  us ; — we  deny  his  name.  Li  the  preface  to  the  ten  commandments, 
God  makes  over  himself  to  sinners  as  their  God  and  Redeemer,  saying 
to  each  of  them  to  whom  his  word  comes,  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God. 
And  as  all  the  commandments  are  directed  to  every  one  in  particu- 
lar; so  the  first  requires  every  one  to  know  and  acknowledge  the 
Lord  to  be  his  God  and  Redeemer.  Our  Larger  Catechism,  on  this 
command,  teaches  us,  that  to  trust  in  God  is  to  know  and  acknowledge 
him,  as  our  own  God  and  Redeemer  :  and  therefore,  that  there  is  no 
trusting  in  God  without  faith's  persuasion  of  his  being  our  God  :  no 
trusting  in  Christ  without  faith's  persuasion,  that  Christ  is  our  Saviour. 
It  may  be  added,  that  this  appropriation  accords  with  the  covenant 
relation  between  Christ  and  the  whole  visible  church,  which  is  common- 
ly set  forth  under  the  similitude  of  a  marriage  relation.  When  God 
says,  I  am  married  unto  you  ;  the  answer  of  faith  is,  IsM,  my  hus- 
band. When  God  says,  it  is  my  people,  the  answer  of  faith  is, 
the  Lord  is  my  God.  Such  is  the  profession  of  the  visible  church ; 
and  true  faith  is  the  persuasion  of  the  heart  answerable  to  that  pro- 
fession. 

In  the  second  place,  it  is  here  asserted,  that  a  man's  justifying  faith 
has  in  it  a  persuasion,  "that  he  shall. have  life  and  salvation  by 
Christ."*  Without  this  persuasion,  in  some  measure,  we  have  no  true 
faith ;  for  it  is  the  same  thing  with  believing  on  the  Son,  or  resting  on 
him  for  salvation.  None  can  trust  in  him  or  rest  on  him  for  salvation 
without  some  degree  of  persuasion,  that  they  shall  have  life  and  salva- 

*  With  regard  to  this  persuasion,  it  is  obvious  from  the  connection  here»  that 
it  is  not  to  be  understood  of  a  persuasion  respecting  abstract  or  doctrinal  propo- 
sitions only ;  but  of  a  persuasion  respecting  also  a  grant  or  promise,which  is  em- 
braced not  only  with  the  understanding  as  trne,  but  with  the  heart  as  good. 
21 


322  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

tion  by  him,  from  sin  as  well  as  from  wrath.  Without  this  persuasion, 
we  do  not  set  to  our  seal  that  God  is  true  in  his  promise  and  record 
concerning  his  Son  ;  nor  do  we  give  any  suitable  answer  to  his  call, 
Look  unto  me  and  be  saved.  Accordingly,  we  find  the  saints  in 
scripture,  using  the  language  of  this  persuasion  in  the  profession  of 
their  faith,  Acts  xv.  11,  ''We  believe,  that  through  the  grace  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  we  shall  be  saved." 

In  the  third  place,  it  is  asserted,  that  a  man's  justifying  faith  hath 
in  its  persuasion,  ''that  whatsoever  Christ  did  for  the  redemption  of 
mankind,  he  did  it  for  him."  This  branch  of  the  persuasion  of  faith 
is  affirmed  by  the  apostle  when  he  says,  "  I  live  by  the  faith  of  the  Son 
of  God,  who  loved  me  and  gave  himself  for  me.  It  is  certain,  that 
what  Christ  did  for  the  redemption  of  mankind,  was  his  obedience 
unto  death  in  their  stead,  or  the  surety  righteousness  which,  as  the 
second  Adam,  he  fulfilled  for  us,  and  for  the  sake  of  which  the  Lord 
is  well  pleased.  This  perfect  righteousness  is  brought  near  to  every 
one  of  us  in  the  gospel,  even  to  the  stout-hearted  and  far  from  righte- 
ousness, and  is  laid  in  Zion  as  the  foundation  of  our  acceptance 
with  God,  and  of  our  hope  of  eternal  salvation  :  Isaiah  xlvi.  12,  13 
— xxviii.  16,  and  therefore,  our  persuasion,  that  whatsoever  Christ 
did  for  the  redemption  of  mankind,  he  did  it  for  us,  in  connection 
with  the  former  parts  of  this  definition,  enters  into  the  nature  of  that 
faith  which  answers  the  free  grant  and  promise  of  Christ  in  the  word. 
I  may  add,  that  the  persuasion,  which  is  here  asserted  to  belong  to  a 
person's  justifying  faith,  is  not  his  believing  that  Christ  died  intention- 
ally for  him  in  particular ;  this  faith  being  the  same,  on  the  matter, 
with  the  belief  of  his  election  ;  which  belief  however  attainable  it  be, 
cannot  belong  to  faith  as  justifying.*  But  when  Christ, with  his  whole 
salvation,  is  applied  by  faith  upon  the  ground  of  the  gospel  offer  and 
call ;  then,  whatsover  he  did  for  the  redemption  of  mankind,  actually 
terminates  on  the  person,  and  is  believed  so  to  do. 

Wherefore,  when  we  consider  this  as  the  plea  of  justifying  faith, 
that  whatsoever  Christ  did  for  the  redemption  of  mankind,  he  did  it 
for  me  ;  the  meaning  is  not,  for  me  by  a  foregoing  purpose  and  in- 
tention ;  but  for  me,  as  issuing  in  the  present  grant  of  it  to  me,  which 
I  now  cordially  embrace. 

Alex.  The  Associate  Presbytery  reckoned  the  common  interest, 
that  all  sinners  under  the  ^gospel  dispensation  have  in  Christ,  a 
ground  upon  which  a  person  should  believe  his  own  special  interest 
in  him.  Is  not  this  unreasonable  ?  How  can  a  common  interest  in 
any  person  or  thing  become  a  special  interest  by  believing  it  to  be  so  ? 

*  For  justifying  fiiith  is  not  a  persuasion  that  God  from  eternity  decreed  our 
justification  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ ;  but  it  is  a  persuasion  of  two  things  : 
First,  that  his  righteousness  is  sufficient  to  be  our  justifying  righteousness  ;  and 
secondly,  That  there  is  such  a  grant  of  it  in  the  gospel  as  warrants  us  now  to 
present  it  to  God,  and  to  rest  on  it  as  our  only  justifying  righteousness. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  323 

R,UF.  A  simile  may  serve  to  shew  that  such  an  improvement  of  a 
common  interest  is  not  so  strange  or  so  contrary  to  the  common  sense 
of  mankind,  as  it  has  been  represented.  Suppose,  that  a  king  makes 
a  proclamation  of  indemnity  to  a  number  of  rebels ;  and  that  they 
have  all  the  same  common  interest  in  it :  does  not  this  common  inter- 
est give  every  one  of  these  rebels  a  ground  so  to  believe  a  special  in- 
terest in  it  for  himself  in  particular,  as  to  accept  of  the  indemnity, 
and  to  get  the  benefit  of  it ;  while  the  rebel,  who  does  not  believe 
that  he  has  any  interest  in  the  indemnity,  supposing,  that  whatever  it 
may  be  to  others,  it  is  no  indemnity  to  him  ;  persists  in  his  rebellian, 
and  perishes  ?  So  the  gospel  is  a  proclamation  of  God's  grant  of 
pardon  and  salvation  to  sinners  through  Jesus  Christ,  All  sinners, 
to  whom  this  proclamation  is  made,  have  a  common  interest  in  it. 
Any  sinner,  who  truly  believes  this  common  interest,  is  thereby  led  to 
believe  that  there  is  pardon  and  salvation  through  Jesus  Christ  for  him 
in  particular ;  and  to  trust  in  the  indemnity  proclaimed  for  pardon 
and  salvation  accordingly.  Whereas,  they  who  disbelieve  a  common 
interest  in  this  indemnity,  also  disbelieve  a  special  interest  in  it ;  and 
so  perish  in  their  sins.  Again,  suppose  a  gift  of  suitab^le  provisions 
to  be  presented  to  a  number  of  persons  ready  to  perish  with  hunger. 
All  these  persons  have  a  common  interest  in  the  provisions  by  virtue 
of  the  gift  ;  and  each  of  them  has  hereby  a  ground  for  such  a  belief 
of  his  own  interest  in  the  provisions  presented  to  them,  as  may  effect- 
ually determine  him  to  take  and  eat,  as  his  case  requires  ;  and  by 
such  a  belief,  he  has  a  farther,  a  special  interest  in  the  provisions  ;  an 
interest  in  them  which  he  could  not  have,  while  he  disbelieved  the 
truth  of  the  gift,  and  despised  the  provisions.  Thus  God  the  Fath- 
er makes  a  free  grant  and  promise  of  Christ  to  all  the  hearers  of  the 
gospel :  he  says,  I  give  you  the  true  bread  from  Heaven.  This  free 
grant  warrants  any  poor  sinner,  who  hears  the  gospel,  to  appropriate 
to  himself  by  faith,  Christ  Jesus  and  all  his  saving  benefits.  This  ap- 
propriation of  Christ  crucified,  as  the  suitable  food  of  our  souls,  cor- 
responds with  the  external  acts  of  eating  and  drinking  what  is  neces- 
sary for  our  bodily  refreshment.  In  this  appropriation,  we  believe 
a  special  interest  in  Jesus  Christ  as  ours  ;  we  are  persuaded,  that  he 
is  so  ours,  that  we  shall  have  life  and  salvation  by  him ;  and  we  take 
to  ourselves  whatever  he  did  for  the  redemption  of  mankind,  as  done 
for  us.  This  appropriating  faith  is  not  a  belief,  that  we  are  among 
those  whom  God,  of  his  mere  good  pleasure,  chose  from  eternity  to 
everlasting  life,  or  for  whom  Christ  intentionally  laid  down  his  life ; 
but  it  is  a  belief,  that  Christ  crucified,  is  now  given  to  us  in  the  gos- 
pel to  be  our  saviour,  our  righteousness  and  salvation  ;  and,  in  believ- 
ing, we  receive  him  as  given  to  us,  and  trust  in  him  for  our  justifica- 
tion and  salvation  accordingly. 

Alex.  These  brethren  might  have  been  satisfied  with  the  defini- 
tion of  faith  which  is  given  in  our  Shorter  Catechism. 


324  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

Rup.  There  was  no  member  of  the  Associate  Presbytery,  who 
did  not  highly  approve  that  definition ;  but  they  judge,  that  it  is 
greatly  perverted  and  abused,  when  it  is  set  in  opposition  to  the  defi- 
nitions expressive  of  the  appropriation  of  faith,  that  had  been  receiv- 
ed before  by  the  reformed  church  of  Scotland :  such  as,  that  in  the 
answer  of  the  Palatine  catechism  to  the  question,  What  is  true  faith  ? 
"  It  is,"  says  that  excellent  summary  of  christian  doctrine,  "  not  only 
a  knowledge  by  which  I  steadfastly  assent  to  all  things,  which  God 
hath  revealed  to  us  in  his  word  ;  but  also  an  assured  aflSance,  kin- 
dled in  my  heart  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  which  I  rest  upon  God,  ma- 
king sure  account,  that  forgiveness  of  sins,  everlasting  righteousness 
and  life,  are  bestowed  not  only  upon  others,  but  also  upon  me ;  and 
and  that  freely  by  the  mercy  of  God  for  the  merit  of  Christ  alone." 
In  the  famous  Mr.  James  MelviPs  catechism,  we  have  the  following 
answer  to  the  same  question  :  "  It  is  my  sure  belief,  that  God  both 
may  and  will  save  me  in  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ ;  because  he  is 
Almighty,  and  has  promised  to  do  so. " 

We  are  to  understand  the  definition  of  faith  in  the  Shorter  Cate- 
chism, according  to  the  account  of  it  in  the  Larger.  These  words  of 
the  former,  "  Christ  Jesus,  as  he  is  offered  in  the  gospel,"  are  equiv- 
alent to  the  following  words  of  the  latter;  '''Christ  and  his  right- 
eousness, held  forth  in  the  promise  of  the  gospel."*  The  act  of 
faith  by  which  we  are  said,  in  the  Shorter  Catechism,  '^to  receive  and 
rest  upon  Christ  for  salvation,"  is  said,  in  the  Larger  Catechism,  to  be 
our  believing  "  application  of  Christ  crucified,  and  all  the  benefits  of 
his  death  to  ourselves,  "f  The  faith,  by  which  we  say  Amen,  in 
prayer,  is  said  to  be  that  "  which  relies  upon  him,  that  he  will  fulfill 
our  requests;"  and  it  is  '^an  assurance  of  our  being  heard. "J  And 
as  this  faith  is  necessary  to  acceptable  prayer,  it  must  be  found,  in  a 
greater  or  less  measure,  in  all  true  believers.  || 

It  is  evident  then,  that  according  to  the  doctrine  of  our  confession 
and  catechisms,  the  receiving  of  Christ,  as  he  is  offered  to  us  in  the 
gospel,  is  just  our  believing  application  of  him  to  ourselves,  as  freely 
given  to  us  in  the  gospel  promise  ;  and  that  our  resting  on  him  alone 
for  our  salvation,  is  our  real  persuasion,  on  the  ground  of  that  prom- 
ise, that  he  is,  and  will  be,  that  to  us,  which  he  is  declared  to  be  in 
the  gospel ;  the  propitiation  for  our  sins,  the  Lord  our  righteous- 
ness, the  Lord  our  strength,  our  light  and  salvati'on.  The  words  of 
the  answer  in  the  shorter  catechism  to  the  question,  What  is  faith  -in 
Jesus  Christ  ?  have  been  used  in  a  sense  quite  opposite  to  that  of  the 
Westminster  Assembly.  Thus,  according  to  some,  our  receiving  Christ, 
as  he  is  offered  to  us  in  the  gospel,  is  our  consenting  to  the  terms,  upon 
which  the  gospel,  as  they  suppose,  offers  or  promises  salvation,  namely, 

*  Larg.  Cat.  quest.  72.  t  Idem,  quest.  170. 

t  Idem,  quest.  196— Short,  quest.  107.  J  Larg.  Cat.  quest.  72, 170, 196. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  325 

faith,  repentance  and  sincere  obedience ;  together  with  our  purposing 
and  promising,  through  Divine  grace,  to  fulfil  these  terms.  Our  rest- 
ing on  Christ,  according  to  this  plan,  is  our  trusting  that  he  will  save 
us,  if  we  persevere  in  endeavouring  to  fulfil  these  terms.  According 
to  this  construction,  not  only  Neonomians,  but  even  Arminians  and 
Socinians  will  subscribe  to  the  definition  of  faith  in  the  Shorter  Cate- 
chism. Accordingly,  the  Socinian  reviser  of  the  Shorter  Catechism, 
mentioned  in  a  former  conversation,  who  altered  most  of  the  answers 
of  that  catechism,  left  this  definition  untouched. 

Alex.  The  notion  that  many  entertain  of  Christ's  having  died  for 
them,  is  nothing  but  gross  presumption  and  delusion. 

RuF.  Such  is  the  conceit  which  many  have,  that  Christ  is  their 
Saviour,  and  that  he  died  for  them,  founded  upon  an  opinion  of  Christ's 
having  died  intentionally  for  all  men  ;  or  of  th«ir  good  qualifications, 
as  giving  them  a  title  to  the  benefit  of  his  death  ;  or  upon  some  flat- 
tering imaginations  or  unaccountable  feelings.  But  this  is  quite  dif- 
ferent from  the  appropriating  faith  taught  from  the  Scriptures,  by  the 
Associate  Presbytery,  as  we  have  already  seen  in  the  course  of  our 
conversation;  a  faith  which,  as  the  twelve  ministers,  who  protested 
against  the  act  of  the  General  Assembly  condemning  the  Marrow,  ob- 
serve, "  is  wi'ought  in  us  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  showing  us  that  Christ, 
his  righteousness  and  salvation  are  brought  near  to  us  in  the  promise 
and  offer  of  the  gospel ;  clearing,  at  the  same  time,  our  right  and 
warrant  to  intermeddle  withal,  without  fear  of  vicious  intromission, 
encouraging  and  enabling  us  to  some  measure  of  confident  applica- 
tion, and  taking  home  all  to  ourselves  freely,  without  money  and  with- 
out price. " 

The  Associate  Presbytery,  in  speaking  of  the  description  of  faith  in 
the  Marrow,  observe,  "  that  it  exhibits  the  scriptural  order  in  which 
faith  closes  ivith  or  appropriates  its  object.  For  the  first  thing  that 
we  have  to  believe,  or  to  be  persuaded  of,  upon  the  ground  of  the 
grant  that  God  has  made  of  Christ  to  mankind-sinners  in  the  word, 
is,  that  Christ  is  ours.  Upon  which  there  will  follow,  according  to 
the  measure  of  faith,  a  persuasion,  that  we  shall  have  life  and  salva- 
tion by  him  ;  and  that  whatsoever  he  did  for  the  redemption  of  man- 
kind, he  did  it  for  us. " 

These  ministers,  in  order  to  guard  their  hearers  against 'presump- 
tion, used  to  warn  them  against  resting  in  a  partial  and  superficial 
application  of  Christ  or  the  promises  ;  as  when  persons  content  them- 
selves with  speculative  notions  of  Christ,  without  spiritual,  heart-af- 
fecting views  of  his  glory  and  suitableness  to  their  case ;  or,  when 
they  pretend  to  receive  him  in  one  of  his  offices,  and  not  in  the  rest ; 
in  his  priestly  office,  for  example,  and  not  in  his  prophetical  and 
kingly  offices  :  or,  when  they  pretend  to  believe  and  embrace  the 
promises,  without  any  view  of  them  as  in  Christ,  in  whom  they  are 
all  yea  and  amen ;  or  to  believe  some  of  them  with  application  to 


326  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

themselves,  while  they  neglect  and  despise  others,  that  are  equally 
necessary  and  suitable  to  their  case  ;  or  while  they  have  no  humbling 
sense  of  their  ignorance,  enmity  and  inability  in  themselves  to  make 
a  believing  application  of  Christ,  or  the  promises  in  him  ;  no  humbling 
sense  of  their  absolute  need  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  seal  and  apply  the 
promises  to  their  souls. 

Alex,  How  comes  it,  that  their  manner  of  speaking  about  Saving 
Eaith  is  so  different  from  that  of  many  sound  divines,  such  as  Flavel, 
Durham,  and  others. 

RuF.  Probably  the  difference  is  more  in  words,  than  in  the  matter. 
I  have  not  found  any  orthodox  divines,  who,  in  speaking  of  these 
words  of  Christ,  "  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ?" 
or  in  explaining  such  applicatory  expressions  of  the  Psalmist  as  these : 
"Thou  art  my  God,  my  Shepherd,  my  light  and  my  salvation,"  do  not 
allow  them  to  be  the  language  of  Faith  ;  and  that  even  in  opposition 
to  sense  or  feeling. 

Alex.  They  mean,  that  such  a  claim  belongs  to  a  high  degree  of 
saving  faith  ;  not  to  the  essence  of  it. 

RuF.  It  seems  plain,  that  Saving  Faith,  in  all  the  various  degrees 
of  it,  proceeds  upon  the  same  ground ;  and  therefore,  the  language 
of  it  must  be  such  as  that  of  the  expressions  now  mentioned,  if  it  be 
founded  on  a  promise  or  grant  of  Christ  and  of  God  in  him  :  where- 
as, if  it  be  founded  on  some  speculative  or  doctrinal  proposition 
only,  it  can  never,  even  in  its  highest  degree,  of  itself,  or  in  its  direct 
act,  speak  any  such  language  :  for  such  a  proposition,  if  it  imply  no 
grant  or  promise,  affords  a  person  no  warrant  to  appropriate  or  take 
to  himself  what  is  spoken  of.  When  a  historical  relation  of  the  riches 
of  Peru  is  read  or  heard,  a  person,  who  has  the  strongest  belief  of 
the  truth  of  that  relation,  is  as  far  from  any  application  of  these 
riches  to  his  personal  use,  as  one  who  is  doubtful  of  it.  The  truth  is, 
the  language  of  a  high  degree  of  saving  faith  is  more  distinct,  more 
steady,  and  unfaultering ;  but  is,  in  reality,  the  same  applicatory 
language  with  that  of  the  weakest  unfeigned  faith. 

On  this  head,  the  Associate  Presbytery  charge  the  acts  of  the 
General  Assembly,  concerning  the  Marrow,  with  three  tenets,  which 
they  reject  and  condemn.  The  first  is,  That  it  is  not  necessary  to 
constitute  saving[and  justifying  ^faith,  to  have  any  persuasion  in  the 
heart,  that  Christ  is  ours ;  that  we  shall  have  life  and  salvation  by 
him  ]  and  that  whatever  Christ  did  for  the  redemption  of  mankind, 
he  did  it  for  us.  The  second  is.  That  no  other  persuasion  is  neces- 
sary to  constitute  justifying  faith,  than  a  belief  and  persuasion  of  the 
mercy  of  God  in  Christ,  and  of  Christ's  ability  and  willingness  to 
save  all  that  come  to  him  ;  this  being  such  a  faith  as  Papists  and  Ar- 
minians  can  subscribe  to  in  consistency  with  their  other  errors  and 
heresies.  The  third  is,  that  one  must  first  come  to  Christ  and  be  a 
true  believer,  before  he  can  appropriate  Christ  and  the  whole  of  his 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  327 

salvation  to  himself,  upon  scripture  ground  and  warrant ;  a  notion 
which  subverts  the  true  nature  of  faith. 

§  36.  Alex.  The  Assembly  charge  the  Marrow  more  directly  with 
Antinomianism,  when  they  represent  it  as  teaching,  that  holiness  is 
not  necessary  to  salvation  ;  as  in  these  words  :  "  If  the  law  say,  good 
works  must  be  done,  and  the  commandment  be  kept,  if  thou  wilt 
obtain  salvation  ;  then  answer  thou,  and  say,  I  am  alreadv  saved, 
before  thou  camest ;  therefore,  I  have  no  need  of  thy  presence. 
Christ  is  my  righteousness,  my  treasure,  and  my  work.  I  confess, 
0  law,  that  I  am  neither  godly  nor  righteous  ;  but  this  I  am  sure  of, 
that  he  is  godly  and  righteous  for  me."  And,  in  the  act  passed  in 
the  year  1722,  they  allege,  that  their  construction  of  these  words  of 
the  Marrow,  is  strengthened  by  the  words  that  follow  in  the  same 
place  :  "  For  in  Christ  I  have  all  things  at  once,  neither  need  I  any 
thing  more  that  is  necessary  to  salvation."  Then,  added  they  in  that 
act,  it  follows,  that  personal  holiness,  and  good  works,  and  persever- 
ance in  holy  obedience  to  the  law  of  God,  are  not  (in  this  author's 
opinion)  necessary  to  salvation  ;  and  a  man  may  have  all  things  ne- 
cessary to  salvation,  though  he  be  not  yet  a  godly  man. 

RuF.  The  Associate  Presbytery  cordially  acknowledge  and  main- 
tain, that  holiness  and  good  works  are,  in  their  own  place,  necessary 
as  an  acknowledgment  of  God's  sovereign  authority  by  our  obedience 
to  his  command ;  necessary  as  being  the  end  of  our  election,  redemp- 
tion and  effectual  calling;  necessary  as  being  expressions  of  our 
gratitude,  and  as  the  promotion  of  them  is  a  principal  design  of  the 
word  and  ordinances  ;  necessary  for  making  our  calling  aud  election 
sure  ;  and  necessary,  according  to  our  Confession  of  Faith,  as,  being 
''done  in  obedience  to  God's  commands,  they  are  fruits  and  evi- 
dences of  a  true  and  lively  faith ;  and  as  by  them  believers  manifest 
their  thankfulness,  strengthen  their  assurance,  edify  their  brethren, 
adorn  the  profession  of  the  gospel,  stop  the  mouths  of  adversaries, 
and  glorify  God." 

In  these  and  the  like  respects,  the  author  of  the  Marrow  no  where 
denies,  but  often  planly  asserts  and  inculcates  the  necessity  of  holi- 
ness and  good  works.  The  words,  which  you  have  recited  as  con- 
demned by  the  Assembly,  and  which  had  been  taken  from  a  sermon  of 
the  great  reformer  Martin  Luther,  were  never  censured  before  by  any 
protestant  church.  They  express  the  perfection  and  extent  of  Christ's 
active  obedience  in  our  room,  answering  the  law-charge  against  the 
believer,  while  he  is,  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  neither  godly  nor  righteous 
in  himself.  As  the  believer  has  no  plea,  in  answer  to  the  law's 
demand  of  satisfaction  to  justice  for  sin,  but  the  sufferings  of  Jesus 
Christ  our  surety  ;  so  he  has  no  plea,  in  answer  to  the  law's  de- 
mand of  perfect  obedience,  for  entitling  him  to  eternal  life,  but 
Christ's  complete  holiness  of  nature  and  righteousness  of  life,  which 
are  imputed  to  the  sinner  in  the  moment  of  believing,  for  his  justifica- 


328  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

tion  in  the  sight  of  God  ;  and  consequently,  this  answer,  "  Christ  is 
godly  and  righteous  for  me,"  is  the  only  one  which  the  believer  can 
give  to  the  law's  demand  of  good  works.  Rom.  iv.  5.  "  To  him  that 
worketh  not,  but  belie veth  on  him  who  justifieth  the  ungodly ;  his 
faith  is  counted  to  him  for  righteousness."  "  Those  whom  God  effect- 
ually calleth,  he  also  freely  justifieth  ;  not  for  any  thing  wrought  in 
them  or  done  by  them  ;  but  by  imputing  the  obedience  and  satisfac- 
tion of  Christ  unto  them."*  So  that  if  we  have  recourse,  in  the  least, 
to  our  personal  holiness  as  the  ground,  in  whole  or  in  part,  of  our  en- 
joyment of  grace  here  or  of  glory  hereafter,  we  dishonor  both  the  law 
and  the  lawgiver,  and  make  our  personal  holiness  a  rival  with  the  Son 
of  God,  by  seeking  to  divide  the  glory  of  our  salvation  between  it 
and  him. 

Alex.  Was  it  not  a  strange  opinion  that  was  advanced  by  the  de- 
fenders of  the  Marrow,  that,  in  the  gospel,  properly  so  taken,  there 
are  no  precepts,  not  even  the  commands  of  Faith  and  repentance  ? 
Such  a  manner  of  expression  seems  to  be,  as  the  Assembly  represented 
it,  of  a  pernicious  tendency. 

RuF.  If  the  gospel  be  taken  largely,  says  the  Associate  Presbytery, 
that  is,  for  a  system  of  all  the  doctrine,  promises,  precepts,  threaten- 
ings  and  histories,  which  in  any  way  concern  man's  recovery  and  sal- 
vation ;  then,  no  doubt,  all  the  precepts  which  belong  to,  or  are  dedu- 
cible  from  the  law  of  the  ten  commands,  are  contained  in  it.  Many 
of  these  precepts,  however,  such  as  those  of  faith  and  repentance,  hav- 
ing a  manifest  connection  with  the  entrance  of  sin,  could  not  be  pro- 
mulgated, before  the  gospel  was  revealed.  But  then  all  these  pre- 
cepts are  reducible  to  those  of  the  ten  commands  ;  though  they  had 
no  due  and  proper  objects,  no  occasion  of  being  exercised,  in  an  inno- 
cent state.  And  therefore,  if  the  gospel  be  taken  strictly  and  prop- 
erly, as  it  is  contra-distinct  from  the  law,  it  is  a  promise,  containing 
glad  tidings  of  a  Saviour,  with  grace,  mercy  and  salvation  in  him  to 
lost  sinners  of  Adam's  family.  Thus  there  are  no  precepts  in  the  gos- 
pel, taken  in  its  st^Hct  and  proper  sense,  as  it  is  contra-distinct  from 
the  law  ;  for  all  precepts,  those  of  faith  and  repentance  not  excepted,  be- 
long to  the  law  ;  which,  according  to  the  nature  of  it,  being  a  perfect 
and  complete  rule  of  all  internal  as  well  as  external  obedience,  must 
oblige  us  to  the  new  duty,  as  soon  as  the  gospel  reveals  the  new  ob- 
ject. And  therefore,  since  the  Lord  was  pleased  to  reveal  his  grace 
and  good  will  in  the  gospel,  faith  and  repentance  are  required  in  the 
law,  as  well  as  other  good  works.  They  are  among  the  duties  re- 
quired in  the  first  commandment  according  to  our  larger  catechism,  f 
Besides,  if  the  law  does  not  bind  sinners  to  believe  and  repent ;  then 
faith  and  repentance,  considered  as  works,  would  enter  into  the  ground 
of  our  justification  before  God  ;  for  the   works  excluded  by  the  scrip- 

*  Confess,  chap.  xi.  §  1.  t  Quest.  104, 105. 


ALEXANDER  AND  EUFUS.  329 

tare  from  the  ground  of  our  justification  before  God,  are  no  other  than 
the  works  of  the  law  :  or  works  of  obedience  to  the  law.  Wherefore 
if  faith  and  repentance  are  not  works  of  the  law,  they  are  not  exclud- 
ed from, -but  mast  belong  to  the  grounds  of  our  pardon  and  accep- 
tance with  God.  The  supposition  that  the  commands  to  believe  and 
repent  are  precepts  of  the  gospel,  not  contained  in  the  law,  is  the 
foundation  of  the  Neonomian  error,  which  teaches  that  another  right- 
eousness, agreeable  to  the  new  law«of  the  gospel,  in  our  own  persons, 
besides  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  is  necessary,  as  the  immediate 
ground  of  our  acceptance  and  confidence  before  God.  Nay,  this  doc- 
trine leads  to  Pelagian  universal  grace ;  for  if  there  be  a  new  law, 
which  was  not  given  to  Adam  in  innocency,  Adam  never  lost  that 
grace  by  which  the  new  law  is  to  be  obeyed  ;  and  then  it  was  neces- 
sary, that  he,  who,  according  to  this  opinion,  gave  a  new  law  to  man- 
kind, should  give  new  universal  grace,  by  which  men  might  be  in  a 
capacity  to  obey  it.  For  it  is  not  consistent  with  the  justice  of  God, 
to  suppose,  that  he  gives  a  law  to  men,  which  he  never  gave  them  any 
ability  to  obey. 

Alex.  Mr.  Willison  owns,  as  I  observed  before,  that  the  act  con- 
demning the  Marrow  in  1720,  was  done  in  a  hurry.  But  then  he 
says,  when  the  Assembly  in  1722  came  to  review  and  explain  these 
hasty  acts,  they  did  justice  to  truth,  and  declared  their  minds,  concern- 
ing the  acts  and  propositions  quarrelled,  in  very  orthodox  trems.  *  But 
afterwards,  in  his  appendix,  he  candidly  confesses,  that,  having  read  the 
act  of  Assembly  of  1722  again,  and  upon  second  thoughts,  he  will  not 
say,  it  is  so  well  worded  as  could  be  wished  ;  or  that  the  word  caus- 
ality is  fit  to  be  used  in  asserting  the  necessity  of  holiness  to  salva- 
tion. But  he  adds,  I  verily  believe  that  the  meaning  of  the  Assembly 
was  sound,  and  their  intentions  good,  viz.,  to  disapprove  every  opin- 
ion or  expression,  that  tended  any  way  to  slacken  our  obligation  to 
the  study  of  holiness. 

RuF.  The  title  of  the  Assembly's  act  in  1722,  was  "  an  act  confirm- 
ing and  explaining  the  act  of  1720  ;"  a  title  which  shows,  that  if  in- 
justice was  done  to  truth  by  the  act  of  1720,  it  was  established  by  that 
which  was  passed  1722.  Mr.  Willison  ought  to  have  given  this  title, 
and  ought  to  have  owned,  that  the  Assembly,  disregarding  the  peti- 
tion and  representation  of  a  number  of  honest  ministers,  who  asked 
nothing  but  justice,  obstinately  refused  to  repeal,  or  to  retract  one  sen- 
tence of  their  unrighteous  act.  He  "ought  also  to  have  owned,  that 
the  words,  federal  conditionality,  were  as  unfit  to  be  .used  in  assert- 
ing the  necessity  of  holiness  to  salvation,  as  the  word  causality.  Mr. 
Willison  owns,  that  the  act  in  1722  was  not  so  well  worded,  as  could 
be  wished.  On  this  expression,  one  of  the  twelve  representers  re- 
marks, that  these  acts  are,  in  their  words,  opposite  to  what  the  Spirit 

*  Impartial  Testimony,  page  315. 


330  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

of  God  calls  "  the  word  of  the  truth  of  the  gospel.  "  The  same  minis- 
ter observes  on  Mr.  Willison's  saying,  "  that  he  truly  believed,  that 
the  Assembly's  meaning  was  sound,  and  their  intention  good  ;  name- 
ly, to  disapprove  every  opinion  or  expression  that  tended  to  slacken 
our  obligation  to  the  study  of  holiness ;"  that  here  is  a  broad  insinu- 
ation of  the  same  calumny,  which  Papists,  and  all  other  legalists,  raise 
against  the  doctrine  of  free  grace  reigning  through  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  unto  eternal  life  ;  that  it  is  a  doctrine  of  licentiousness  ;  a 
charge  from  which  the  apostle  Paul  found  himself  obliged  to  defend 
his  doctrine.  Rom.  vi.  1.  But  what  says  Mr.  Willison  of  the  Associ- 
ate Presbytery's  opinion  of  that  act  ? 

Alex.  He  says,  it  was  a  harsh  censure,  for  which  those  brethren 
had  no  just  ground.  The  act  in  It 22,  declares,  "  that  what  they  had 
asserted  in  their  former  act,  just  now  mentioned,  concerning  the  ne- 
cessity of  holiness  for  obtaining,  everlasting  happiness,  was  meant 
only  of  obtaining  the  possession  and  enjoyment  of  happiness,  and  not 
of  the  right  and  title  to  it ;  and  that  it  is  dangerous  to  assert,  that 
holy  obedience  is  not  a  federal  and  conditional  means,  or  that  it  has 
no  kind  of  causality  in  order  to  the  obtaining  of  glory ;  as  it  seems 
to  exclude  all  usefulness  and  influence  of  holy  obedience,  in  order  of 
means  towards  the  possession  of  heaven. "  The  Associate  Presbyte- 
ry, in  their  act  concerning  the  doctrine  of  grace,  declare,  that  the  As- 
sembly, by  expressing  themselves  in  this  manner,  opened  a  wide 
door  for  Arminian  and  Sociniau  errors  to  overflow  the  church  and 
land.* 

Rup.  Mr.  Willison  ought  to  have  shown  the  insufficiency  of  the  As- 
sociate Presbytery's  reasons  for  censuring  the  Assembly's  act  in  1122. 
The  presbytery  disapproved  the  Assembly's  asserting,  "  That  we  are 
to  obtain  the  possession  and  enjoyment  of  everlasting  happiness, 
though  not  a  right  and  title  to  it,  by  a  holy  life ;  and  that  obedience 
is  a  federal  and  conditional  means,  or  that  it  has  a  kind  of  causality 
in  order  to  the  obtaining  of  glory."  1.  Because  the  obedience  of  be- 
lievers cannot  be  the  previous  condition  of  their  possession  of  salva- 
tion ;  since  they  have  already  begun  to  possess  it.  "  By  o^race  ye  are 
saved,  not  of  works".  "  He  hath  saved  us,  not  according  to  our 
works,  but  according  to  his  purpose  and  grace."  ''  Not  by  works  of 
righteousness  which  we  have  done,  but  according  to  his  mercy  he  sav- 
ed us."  "  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son,  hath  everlasting  life  ;"  in  the 
beginning  and  first  fruits  of  it  as  well  as  in  the  title  to  it.  Ephes.  ii. 
8  ;  2  Tim.  i.  9 ;  Tit.  iii.  5.  2.  Because  the  Assembly's  act,  which 
we  now  speak  of,  teaches,  that  though  we  obtain  the  right  to  heaven 
or  eternal  life  by  Christ's  obedience  ;  we  obtain  the  possession  of  it 
by  our  own  doing  or  personal  holiness.  But  the  scripture  teaches  us 
very  differently,  assuring  us,  that  we  obtain  salvation  itself,  as  well  as 

*  Imp.  Test,  page  215. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  331 

a  title  to  it,  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  that  in  him  we  obtain  the  in- 
heritance itself ;  and  that  he  hath  obtained  eternal  redemption  itself 
for  us.  Thessal.  v.  9  ;  Eph.  i.  11  ;  Heb.  ix.  12.  Some  have  under- 
stood the  apostle's  words  in  1  Corinth,  ix.  24,  ''  So  run,  that  ye  may 
obtain  ;"  as  if  he  meant,  that  our  running  is  the  procuring  cause  or 
condition  of  our  obtaining  the  incorruptible  crown.  But  the  word 
used  in  the  original  signifies  to  receive  or  apprehend.  By  this  race, 
christians  go  to  receive  a  crown,  the  possession  of  which  is  already  se- 
cured to  them  by  the  imputed  righteousness  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  by  the  promise,  w^hich  is  yea  and  ameu  in  him.  This  crown  is 
the  gift  of  God  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  Rom.  vi.  23.  3.  Be- 
cause the  act  of  the  Assembly,  asserting  the  necessity  of  our  own  per- 
sonal holiness  as  a  federal  and  conditional  means,  and  as  having  some 
kind  of  causality  in  order  to  the  obtaining  of  glory,  makes  our  personal 
obedience  a  federal  or  proper  condition  upon  which  the  obtaining  of 
eternal  glory  is  suspended.  This  is  just  the  Neonomian  scheme,  pro- 
pagated by  Mr.  Baxter  and  others ;  according  to  which  scheme,  the 
gospel  of  Christ  is  a  new  law  prescribing  faith,  repentance  and  sincere 
obedience  as  the  condition,  by  the  performance  of  which  eternal  life  is 
to  be  obtained.  This  scheme  is  just  a  new  edition  of  the  covenant  of 
works  :  according  to  which  new  edition,  man's  own  obedience  is  still 
as  much  the  immediate  ground  of  his  hope  of  eternal  life,  as  it  was 
according  to  the  old.  This  is  altogether  inconsistent  with  the  oppo- 
sition which  the  apostle  states  between  justification  by  the  works  of 
the  law  and  justification  by  faith ;  for,  according  to  that  opposition, 
the  causal  influence  of  our  own  personal  obedience,  which  obtains  in 
the  fo.mer,  is  entirely  excluded  from  the  latter.  Rom.  iii.  2t,  28  ;  iv. 
4,  5  ;  xi.  6.  When  our  own  obedience  is  thus  admitted  as  having 
the  causality  of  a  federal  condition  in  order  to  eternal  glory,  the  As- 
sembly's saying  in  the  same  act,  "  that  our  obedience  does  not  found 
our  title  to  that  good  before  the  Lord,"  must  either  be  understood 
otherwise  than  according  to  the  common  use  of  the  words,  or  be  al- 
lowed to  be  a  gross  inconsistency :  for  the  causality  of  a  federal 
condition  is  no  other  than  that  of  its  founding  a  title  to  the  benefit, 
which  has  been  promised  upon  that  condition. 

Alex.  How  can  this  expression,  "  that  our  own  obedience  does 
not  found  our  title  to  eternal  life  before  the  Lord,"  be  understood 
otherwise,  than  according  to  the  common  use  of  the  words  ? 

RuF.  The  Assembly,  consistently  with  their  ascribing  the  causali- 
ty of  a  federal  condition  to  our  own  obedience,  might  allow,  that  our 
obedience  does  not  found  our  title  to  eternal  life  in  respect  o^  proper 
merit.  Even  the  Papists  and  Arminians  do  not  assert,  that  men  are 
entitled  to  eternal  life  by  the  proper  and  intrinsic  merit  of  their 
obedience  ;  or  otherwise  than  in  virtue  of  a  promise,  which,  they  say, 
God  hath  given  them,  of  eternal  life  upon  the  condition  of  their  sin- 
cere obedience. 


332  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

Alex.  Mr.  Willison  observes,  that  the  Assembly  limits  the  sense 
in  which  they  disapprove  this  assertion,  "  That  holy  obedience  is 
not  a  federal  or  conditional  mean,  nor  has  any  kind  of  causality 
in  order  to  the  attaining  of  glory;"  when  they  add  these  words: 
"  As  this  assertion  seems  to  exclude  all  usefulness  and  influence 
of  holy  obedience,  in  order  of  means,  towards  the  possession  of 
Heaven."* 

RuF.  There  is  nothing  in  these  words  against  the  construction 
which  the  Associate  Presbytery  put  upon  the  preceding  words  of  the 
act.  For  the  Assembly's  saying,  "  that  our  obedience  is  among  the 
means  towards  the  possession  of  Heaven,"  is  no  proof,  that  they  do 
not  hold  our  obedience  to  be,  in  a  proper  sense,  a  federal  condition 
of  eternal  life.  Because  every  federal  condition  is  a  mean  ;  though 
every  mean  is  not  a  federal  condition.  Nay,  the  Assembly's  asser- 
tion is  made  nothing  better,  but  rather  worse,  by  this  addition  ;  as  it 
seems  to  imply,  that  the  obedience  of  believers,  unless  it  were  neces- 
sary or  useful  in  relation  to  eternal  glory,  as  a  federal  cause  or  condi- 
tion of  it,  would  not  be  necessary  at  all,  or  it  would  be  useless  ;  a  re- 
proach which  is  commonly  in  the  mouths  of  Papists,  Arminians,  and 
other  opposers  of  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  free  grace,  through 
the  imputed  righteousness  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

Alex.  Mr.  Willison  complains,  that  the  Associate  Presbytery 
were  uncharitable  in  asserting,  that  the  Assembly  advanced  opinions 
contrary  to  the  doctrine  of  grace  in  that  very  act  wherein  the  Assem- 
bly profess  a  close  adherence  to  our  standards  with  respect  to  that 
doctrine. 

RuF.  And  are  we  not  uncharitable  in  charging  Servetus,  Episco- 
pius,  Limborch  and  others,  with  advancing  so  many  opinions  in  their 
writings,  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of  grace  ?  For  they  professed  as 
close  an  adherence  to  the  supreme  standard  of  that  doctrine,  as  the 
Assembly  professed  to  the  subordinate  standards,  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland.  But  the  regard  due  to  the  Assembly's  profession  was 
greatly  diminished  by  the  use  they  made  of  their  power  in  censuring 
honest  ministers  for  maintaining  the  genuine  doctrine  of  these  subor- 
dinate standards,  and  in  screening  others  from  censure,  who  were 
guilty  of  undermining  that  doctrine. 

Alex.  Mr.  Willison  asserts,  that  the  brethren  of  the  Associate 
Presbytery  did  not  openly  complain  of  that  act,  at  the  passing  of  it 
in  1722.  But  as  Mr.  Ralph  Erskine,  in  the  appendix  to  his  Faith 
no  Fancy,  has  published  a  copy  of  the  protestation  which  was  enter- 
ed by  twelve  ministers  against  that  act,  upon  the  passing  of  it,  and 
avers  that  it  was  printed  at  Edinburgh  in  the  same  year ;  (and  his 
testimony,  as  far  as  I  knew,  was  never  contradicted  ;)  this  may  be 
allowed  to  be  a  slip  of  Mr.  Willison's  memory.     However,  I  make 

*  Impart.  Test.,  page  215. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  333 

no  great  account  of  this  dispute  about  causality  and  federal  condi- 
tions, and  the  like  uncouth  words  or  phrases. 

RuF.  The  apostle  warns  us  to  avoid  strifes  of  words.  1  Tim.  vi  4. 
Yet,  he  also  enjoins  us  to  show,  in  our  doctrine,  "sound  speech,  that 
cannot  be  condemned,"  Tit.  ii.  8;  ''and  to  hold  fast  the  form  of 
sound  words^  2  Tim.  i.  IB.  Hence,  there  are  cases,  in  which  the 
use  of  an  expression  or  phrase  ought  to  be  condemned  and  testified 
against ;  particularly,  when  it  has  been  long  and  commonly  used,  not 
to  express  any  truth,  but  only  some  dangerous  error ;  and  when 
tM)se  who  use  such  an  expression  or  phrase,  refuse  to  join  with  oth- 
ers in  the  condemnation  of  a  well-known,  dangerous  and  spreading 
error  as  thereby  expressed.  Public  teachers,  who  deal  much  in  such 
phrases  or  expressions,  are  liable  to  the  censure  passed  by  the  synod 
at  Jerusalem  on  some  who  taught  the  Gentile  converts  the  necessity 
of  circumcision  ;  namely,  that  they  troubled  the  people  of  God  with 
words,  subverting  their  soul ;  Acts  xv.  24.  I  cannot  help  thinking, 
that  they  are  liable  to  this  charge,  who  use  this  expression ;  that 
men's  own  obedience  is  a  federal  or  conditional  mean  ;  and  has  some 
kind  of  causality,  in  order  to  the  attaining  of  eternal  glory.  This  act 
of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  among  other 
steps  of  defection,  prepared  the  way  for  the  appearance  in  that  church 
of  such  a  gross  Socinian  as  Dr.  M'Gill,  who  describes  the  covenant 
of  grace  "  as  consisting  in  the  doctrine  which  Jesus  taught,  obedience 
to  which,  with  repentance  and  a  virtuous  life,  are  the  terms  and  con- 
ditions of  salvation."* 

I  shall  only  add  on  this  head,  that  the  Associate  Presbytery  con- 
demned three  tenets  contained  in  those  acts  of  the  Assembly  :  The 
first  is.  That  the  gospel,  strictly  taken,  is  a  new,  proper  and  precep- 
tive law  with  a  sanction,  binding  to  faith,  repentance  and  the  other 
duties  which  are  consequential  to  the  revelation  of  the  grace  of  God 
in  the  gospel  of  Christ.  The  second  is,  That  though  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  alone  founds  our  title  to  eternal  glory,  yet  our  per- 
sonal holiness,  or  our  own  obedience  to  the  new  law,  is  the  condition 
upon  which  we  obtain  the  possession  of  it.  The  third  is.  That  our 
personal  holiness  or  good  works,  have  a  causal  influence  upon  our 
eternal  salvation,  and  are  a  federal  and  conditional  mean  of  it ;  all 
which  are  contrary  to  the  scriptures,  and  to  our  confession  and  Lar- 
ger Catechism. 

§  37.  Alex.  The  Assembly's  act  in  1720,  charges  the  Marrow 
with  teaching,  that  the  believer  is  not  under  the  law  as  a  rul^  of  life ; 
because  it  asserts,  that  as  the  law  is  a  covenant  of  works,  the  believer 
is  wholly  and  altogether  set  free  from  it ;  set  free  from  its  command- 
ing and  condemning  power  :  and  because,  according  to  the  Marrow, 


*  Dr.  M'Gill's  Practical  Essay  on  the  Death  of  Christ,  as  quoted  in  page  86  of 
an  Overture,  published  in  1792,  by  a  committee  of  the  Associate  Synod  of  Glasgow. 


334  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

a  believer  is  to  yield  obedience  to  the  law  of  Christ,  not  only  without 
respect  to  what  the  law  of  works  promises  or  threatens ;  but  also, 
without  respect  to  what  the  law  of  Christ  promises  or  threatens. 

RuF.  It  is  very  remarkable,  that  the  last  sentence  you  have  recit- 
ed, instead  of  proving  that  the  law  is  not  a  rule  of  life  to  the  believer, 
asserts  the  direct  contrary  in  the  strongest  manner,  viz;  That  the 
believer  should  regard  the  law  of  Christ  as  the  rule  of  his  life,  and 
yield  entire  obedience  to  it,  though  it  were  without  any  promise  or 
threatening.  The  truth  is,  the  author,  in  this  passage,  is  not  treating 
of  the  rule,  but  of  the  motives  of  the  believer's  obedience  ;  and  it 
may  occur,  afterwards,  when  we  come  to  consider  the  Assembly's 
charge  against  the  Marrow,  with  regard  to  these  motives.  As  to  the 
assertion,  that  believers  are  wholly  set  free  from  the  law  as  a  cove- 
nant of  works,  it  is  the  doctrine  of  the  apostle  Paul ;  who  says  to  the 
believing  Romans,  "  Ye  are  not  under  the  law  ;  ye  are  become  dead 
to  the  law  through  the  body  of  Christ."  Rom.  vi.  14 — vii.  4.  The 
believer  is  not  under  the  condemning  power  of  the  law  ;  because  he 
is  delivered  from  the  curse  of  it.  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the 
curse  of  the  law ;  and  there  is  no  condemnation  to  any  that  are  in 
him.  Nor  can  believers  be  under  its  commanding  power  :  for  its 
commanding  and  condemning  power,  in  the  case  of  transgression,  are 
inseparable.  It  curses  all  who,  being  under  its  commanding  power, 
do  not  continue  to  do  all  that  it  commands  ;  Gal.  iii.  13,  10  ;  Rom. 
viii.  1.  If  the  commands  of  the  law  as  a  covenant,  were  perfectly 
fulfilled  by  Jesus  Christ  as  the  surety  for  his  people,  then  they  are 
not  under  its  commanding  power  ;— it  has  nothing  to  require  of 
them  ;  as  it  has  received  from  him  all  that  they  owed  it.  "  Christ 
crucified,"  said  Charnock,  "  not  only  disarmed  the  law  of  its  thun- 
ders, but  defaced  the  obligation  of  it,  as  a  covenant,  and  as  it  were, 
ground  the  stones  upon  which  it  was  written,  into  powder."*  So  our 
Confession  of  Faith  and  Larger  Catechism  teach,  that  true  believers 
are  delivered  from  the  moral  law  as  a  covenant  of  works,  f  As  this 
expression  of  the  Marrow  is  a  precious  truth  in  itself ;  so  the  mani- 
fest import  of  it  is  quite  contrary  to  the  Assembly's  purpose.  They 
quote  it  to  prove,  that  the  author  holds  believers  not  to  be  under  the 
law  as  a  rule  of  life  ;  whereas,  his  asserting  that  believers  are  deliver- 
ed from  the  law,  as  it  is  a  covenant  of  works,  necessarily  implies  that 
they  are  under  it  in  another  respect :  and  in  what  respect  the  author 
holds  them  to  be  still  under  it,  candor  would  teach  us  to  hear  him- 
self, while  he  abundantly  teaches,  that  they  are  under  it,  as  it  is  the 
law  of  Christ,  and  a  rule  of  life. 

Alex.  The  Assembly,  in  their  explaining  and  confirming  act  in 

*  Charnock,  voL  iL  page  531. 

+  Westm.  Confess,  chap.  xix.  art.  5.    Larger  Cateehism,  quest.  37. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  335 

1 1^22,  declare,  that  when  they  produced  these  words  of  the  Marrow, 
as  a  part  of  the  proof  against  the  author,  of  his  maintaining  this  er- 
roneous tenet,  that  the  law  is  not  a  rule  of  life  to  believers,  they  ap- 
prehended that  he  understood  by  the  covenant  of  works,  the  moral 
law,  strictly  and  properly  taken  ;  "as  it  appears  he  does,"  say  they, 
"  in  other  places  of  his  book,  as  particularly  in  page  7,  he  says,  "That 
indeed  the  law  of  works  signifies  the  moral  law ;  and  the  moral  law, 
strictly  and  properly  taken,  signifies  the  covenant  of  works." 

RuF,  But  how  could  the  Assembly  apprehend,  that  this  expres- 
sion of  the  author  would  answer  their  purpose  of  proving  that  he  de- 
nies the  law  to  be  a  rule  of  life  to  believers  :  unless  they  apprehended 
(what  no  one,  who  reads  the  Marrow  with  a  reasonable  degree  of  at- 
tention, can  apprehend,)  that  the  law  as  it  is  a  covenant  of  works, 
and  the  law  as  a  rule  of  life,  in  this  book,  mean  the  same  thing,  while 
the  author  declares,  as  expressly  as  he  can  do,  that  they  mean  differ- 
ent things,  and  is  very  particular  in  showing  the  difference  between 
the  one  and  the  other  ?  The  author  says,  that  the  moral  law,  strict- 
ly and  properly  taken,  signifies  the  covenant  of  works ;  because,  as 
Mr.  Boston  observes,  the  moral  law,  signifying  the  law  of  manners, 
answers  to  the  scripture  term  of  the  laiv  of  works,  by  which  is  meant 
the  covenant  of  works.  So  the  answer  to  the  93d  question  of  the 
Larger  Catechism  is  a  strict  and  proper  definition  of  the  covenant  of 
Works  ;  from  which  that  Catechism  in  the  answer  to  question  97th 
asserts,  that  believers  are  delivered  so  as  to  be  thereby  neither  justi- 
fied nor  condemned  ;  that  is,  they  are  neither  under  the  command  of 
it  to  be  justified,  nor  under  the  threatening  of  it  to  be  condemned. 
Thus  these  answers  of  the  Larger  Catechism  are  as  much  reproached 
by  the  Assembly's  acts,  as  the  passages  they  quote  from  the  Marrow. 
Alex.  The  Assembly  declared,  that  in  censuring  these  expressions 
of  the  Marrow,  it  was  not  the  meaning  or  intention  of  their  act  to  in- 
Binuate,  that  believers  in  Christ  are  under  the  law  as  a  covenant  of 
works,  or  that  they  are  obliged  to  see  justification  by  their  own  obe- 
dience. 

RuF.  The  Associate  Presbytery  justly  censure  the  Assembly,  for 
making  these  two  propositions  one  and  the  same,  viz  :  That  believ- 
ers in  Christ  are  not  under  the  law  as  a  covenant  of  works  ;  and  that 
they  are  not  obliged  to  seek  justification  by  their  own  obedience. 
The  proper  form  of  the  covenant  of  works  was  man's  obligation  to 
perfect  obedience  as  the  condition  of  life ;  for  as  our  Shorter  Cate- 
chism expresses  it,  God  entered  into  that  covenant  of  life  with  man, 
upon  condition  of  perfect  obedience  : — Whereas,  his  being  obliged  to 
seek  justification  and  life  by  his  obedience  is  not  the  proper  form, 
but  a  consequence  of  it ;  and  even  such  a  consequence,  as  does  not, 
seem  necessary  to  the  fulfilment  of  it.  For,  if  Adam  had  performed 
the  obedience  required,  he  would  have  been  justified  ;  though  he  had 
not  aimed  at  his  own  justification  by  it ;  but  only  at  the  glory  of  God. 


336  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

And  though  he  was  to  have  life  by  or  for  his  obedience,  yet  he  could 
never  seek  or  claim  life  by  it,  till  he  had  performed  i^  perfectly.  If 
the  two  propositions  before  mentioned  be,  as  the  Assembly  represent 
them,  ecfuivalent  or  the  same,  then  the  believer  is  no  otherwise  freed 
from  the  covenant  of  works  since  he  believed,  than  he  was  before ; 
for  then,  being  under  the  outward  dispensation  of  the  gospel,  he  was 
as  little  obliged  to  seek  justification  by  his  own  obedience,  as  he  is 
now.  Nay,  the  believer  is  no  more  delivered  from  the  law  as  a  cov- 
enant of  works,  than  the  unbeliever ;  who  is  as  little  obliged  to  seek 
justification  by  his  own  obedience  as  the  believer  is.  On  this  suppo- 
sition, all  men  especially  such  as  are  under  the  outward  dispensation 
of  the  gospel,  are  delivered  from  the  command  of  the  law  as  a  cove- 
nant of  works  ;  because  none  of  them  are  obliged  to  seek  justification 
by  their  own  obedience.  And  if  they  be  not  under  the  command  of 
the  covenant  of  works,  how  can  they  be  under  the  curse,  or  the  con- 
demning power  of  it  ?  But  the  truth  is,  though  the  law  or  covenant 
of  works  be  broken,  it  is  perpetually  binding  :  and  though  the  sinner 
be  an  insolvent  debtor,  yet  the  debt,  both  of  obedience  and  satisfac- 
tion, lies  upon  his  head.  This  is  the  sinner's  case  as  long  as  he  is  un- 
der the  law,  and  not  under  grace,  through  union  to  Christ,  the  second 
Adam,  who  came  to  pay  that  double  debt — a  debt  from  which  true 
believers  alone  are  free,  through  Ihe  imputation  of  his  law-fulfilling 
and  justice-satisfying  righteousness  to  them. 

Alex.  Many  supposing,  as  the  Assembly  does,  that  the  two  pro- 
positions before  mentioned  are  equivalent  or  the  same,  think  the  as- 
sertion, that  men  in  their  natural  state  are  under  the  commanding 
power  of  the  covenant  of  works,  is  inconsistent  with  their  situation 
under  the  external  dispensation  of  the  covenant  of  grace. 

RuF.  The  proper  form  of  the  commanding  power  of  the  law  as  a 
covenant  of  works,  lies  in  the  connection  between  personal  obedience 
and  eternal  life.  The  law  is  still  saying,  "  The  man  that  doth  these 
things,  shall  live  in  them."  "If  thou  wilt  enter  into  life,  keep  the 
commandments.  "This  connection  still  stands  in  the  law  under  which 
the  natural  man  is  detained  by  his  unbelief.  Hence,  he  is  still  under 
an  obligation  to  that  perfect  obedience  which  has  this  life  promised 
to  it  This  is  an  obligation  on  fallen  men  not  to  seek  justification  by 
their  own  obedience,  but  to  despair  of  it,  and  to  expect  nothing  by 
the  broken  law,  which  they  are  under,  but  condemnation  and  death, 
according  to  the  sentence  of  that  law.  Men's  being  under  the  com- 
manding power  of  the  law  as  a  covenant,  accords  well  with  their  ob- 
ligation under  the  gospel  dispensation  to  seek  justification  and  life  by 
the  righteousness  of  Christ :  for  on  account  of  the  iaviolable  connec- 
tion necessarily  implied  in  this  commanding  power  between  perfect 
obedience  and^eternal  life,  fallen  men  can  have  no  good  hope  of  justi- 
fication and  life  but  by  a  righteousness  which  answers  the  law's  de- 
mand of  perfect  obedience,  as  well  as  that  of  a  satisfaction  for  sin  ; 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  337 

and  as  they  have  no  righteousness  of  their  own,  the  commanding  pow- 
er of  the  law-covenant  shuts  them  up  to  seek  justification  by  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ,  which  is  revealed  in  the  gospel  as  answering  both 
these  demands.  Nay,  since  the  commanding  power  of  the  law-cove- 
nant acquiesces  in  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  as  completely  answer- 
ing its  demands,  the  same  commanding  power  may  well  be  considered  as 
binding  the  sinner  to  acquiesce  in  that  righteousness  revealed  in  the 
gospel.  So  much  indeed  is  implied  in  the  threatening  of  the  law 
against  unbelief:  "He  that  believeth  not,  shall  be  damned." 

Alex.  Some  think  that  men,  in  their  natural  state,  cannot  now  be 
said  to  be  under  the  law  as  a  covenant  of  works  ;  because,  they  say, 
as  the  covenant  of  works  was  made  with  Adam,  the  condition  of  it, 
in  the  strict  and  proper  sense  of  the  words,  was  no  other  than  absti- 
nence from  the  forbidden  fruit ;  which  is  never  proposed  as  the  con- 
dition of  life  to  the  rest  of  mankind. 

RuF.  The  condition  of  the  covenant  of  works  is  that  which  enti- 
tles those  who  perform  it  to  eternal  life,  and  renders  those  who  vio- 
late it  liable  to  eternal  misery.  Now,  to  suppose  that  this  condition, 
in  the  strict  and  proper  sense  of  the  word,  was  only  abstinence  from 
the  fruit  of  the  tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  without  including 
any  requisition  of  love  to  G-od,  or  of  man  for  his  sake  ;  or  as  if  the 
penalty  was  not  to  be  incurred  by  any  other  sin,  than  that  of  the  ex- 
ternal act  of  violating  that  abstinence,  is  a  most  absurd  supposition  ; 
contrary  to  the  spiritual  nature,  and  the  extent  of  the  moral  law, 
which  was  written  on  Adam's  heart ;  contrary  to  the  repetitions  of 
the  covenant  of  works  in  other  parts  of  the  scripture.  Hence,  our 
divines  have  justly  considered  the  positive  precept  about  abstaining 
from  the  tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  as  not  excluding,  but  in- 
cluding all  the  commands  of  the  moral  law.  So  that  the  condition  of 
the  covenant  of  works  though  couched  under  the  positive  precept,  is  not 
rightly  understood  ;  if  it  is  not  considered  as  including  perfect  obe- 
dience to  both  the  first  and  second  tables  of  the  moral  law.  The 
matters  about  which  men's  obedience  is  exercised,  are  varied  accord- 
ing to  the  various  situations,  circumstances  and  relations  of  men ; 
and  yet  the  proper  form  of  the  covenant  of  works,  which  consists,  as 
has  been  just  now  observed,  in  the  federal  connection  between  perfect 
obedience  and  eternal  life ;  and  between  disobedience  and  eternal 
death,  continue  the  same  in  the  case  of  all  that  are  in  their  natural 
state.  In  short,  it  seems  plain,  from  many  places  of  scripture,  par- 
ticularly from  the  texts  already  referred  to  in  the  6th  and  7  th  chap- 
ters of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans,  that  it  is  the  privilege  of  believers 
only,  to  be  not  under  the  law  as  a  covenant ;  and  consequently,  that 
all  the  rest  of  mankind  are  under  it  in  that  form. 

Alex.  How  can  sinners  be  said  to  be  under  it,  when  it  makes  no 
promise  to  any  sinner  ? 

22 


338  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

RuF,  So  far  as  this  affects  the  matter  in  question,  it  proceeds  upon 
the  erroneous  supposition,  which  has  been  considered  already ;  viz., 
that  men's  being  under  the  law  as  a  covenant  is  one  and  the  same 
thing  with  their  being  under  an  obligation  to  seek  justification  and 
life  by  their  own  obedience.  It  may  only  be  added,  that  it  is  contrary 
to  the  common  sense  of  mankind  to  suppose  that  a  person  is  free  from 
the  obligation  of  the  law,  because  he  is  a  malefactor  to  whom  the  law 
promises  nothing.  The  truth  is,  men  are  under  the  law  as  a  covenant 
of  works,  while  they  are  under  that  law  which  promises  life  to  the 
perfect  or  personal  obedience,  and  threatens  death  on  account  of  the 
disobedience  of  all  that  are  under  it  ;  or,  in  other  words,  which  estab- 
lishes a  federal  connection  between  their  perfect  obedience  and  eternal 
life ;  and  between  every  instance  of  their  disobedience  and  eternal 
death. 

Alex.  Is  not  the  moral  law  distinguishable  from  the  covenant  of 
works,  as  well  as  from  the  covenant  of  grace  ?  If  so,  it  does  not  fol- 
low from  men's  being  said  to  be  under  the  law,  that  they  are  under  the 
covenant  of  works. 

RuF.  In  answer  to  this  obligation,  I  observe,  that  it  may  indeed  be 
inferred  from  the  law's  being  distinguishable  from  the  covenant  qf 
works,  that  men  might  possibly  have  been  under  the  law,  without 
being  under  the  covenant  of  works.  Bu^t  we  cannot  reason  from  the 
possibility  of  a  thing  depending  on  the  will  of  God,  to  the  actual  ex- 
istence of  it.  In  the  next  place,  it  is  absurd  to  insinuate,  that  men's 
being  under  the  law  may  be  understood  as  well  of  their  being  under 
the  covenant  of  grace,  as  of  their  being  under  the  covenant  of  works. 
For  the  scripture,  in  speaking  of  the  relation  of  men  in  their  natural 
state  to  the  covenant  of  works,  never  opposes  that  covenant  to  the  law, 
as  it  does  the  covenant  of  grace.  It  is  never  said  to  men  in  their  nat- 
ural state,  Ye  are  not  under  the  covenant  of  works,  but  under  the  law  ; 
as  it  is  said  to  believers.  Ye  are  not  under  the  law,  but  under  grace  ; 
that  is,  under  the  covenant  of  grace.  Our  Larger  Catechism,  as  I  ob- 
served before,  calls  a  definition  of  the  covenant  of  works,  the  moral 
law  ;  but  would  any  be  so  absurd  as  to  call  a  definition  of  the  cove- 
nant of  grace,  the  moral  law  ?  The  Westminster  divines  had  good 
reason  to  call  the  covenant  of  works  the  moral  law  ;  because  the  scrip- 
tare  does  so.  The  scripture,  in  speaking  of  justification,  continually 
uses  the  word  law  for  the  moral  law ;  "  The  righteousness  of  God 
without  the  law  is  manifested  ;  Ye  are  not  under  the  law ;  What  the 
law  could  not  do,  because  it  was  weak  through  the  flesh."  Rom.  iii. 
21  ;  vi.  14  ;  viii.  3.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  evident,  that  in  such 
places,  the  word  law  is  to  be  understood  of  the  law  as  a  covenant ; 
that  being  the  way  of  justification  before  God,  that  stands  opposed  to 
the  gospel  way  of  it.  In  this  sense,  being  under  the  law  is  represent- 
ed as  the  natural  state  of  fallen  Adam,  and  of  all  his  descendants  by 
ordinary  generation  j  as  in  Rom.  iii.   19.     God  never  having,  since 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  339 

the  creation  of  men,  proposed  the  moral  law  to  them,  (out  of  Christ 
and  out  of  the  covenant  of  grace,)  otherwise  than  as  a  covenant. . 

Alex.  The  Assembly  in  their  act  in  1722,  own,  that  it  is  a  precious 
gospel  truth,  that  believers  are  free  from  the  law  as  it  is  a  covenant  of 
works.  Hence,  some  may  allege,  that  it  is  a  strained  consequence 
from  their  making  the  freedom  of  the  believers  from  the  law  consist 
in  their  not  being  obliged  to  seek  justification  by  their  own  obedience, 
to  infer,  that  they  meant  to  deny  the  privilege  of  believers,  and  to  make 
them  no  happier  than  unbelievers. 

RuF.  The  Assembly  have  shown  the  justice  of  this  inference  very 
plainly,  by  their  condemning,  in  the  same  act,  this  position,  "  that  the 
law,  as  to  believers,  is  divested  of  its  promise  of  life  and  threatening 
of  death."  For  hence,  it  is  evident,  that  they  keep  the  believer,  equal- 
ly with  the  unbeliever,  under  the  commanding  and  condemning  power 
of  the  law.  For  if  the  law,  as  to  the  believer,  be  not  really  divested 
of  its  promise  of  life  ;  then,  he  is  under  the  commanding  power  there- 
of :  so  that  his  obedience,  being  such  perfect  obedience  as  the  law  re- 
quires, has  the  promise  of  life  ;  and  thus  he  must  have  another  law- 
title  to  life  and  eternal  salvation,  than  Christ's  obedience.  And  if  the 
law,  as  to  the  believer,  be  not  really  divested  of  its  threatening  of 
death  ;  then,  he  is  under  the  commanding  power  thereof.  So  that  ac- 
cording to  the  Assembly,  his  sins  render  him  actually  obnoxious  to 
condemnation  and  eternal  death,  though  he  be  in  Christ  Jesus,  contra- 
ry to  the  express  declaration  of  the  apostle.  Rom.  viii.  1. 

Alex.  It  is  supposed,  tl^at  the  Assembly  understood  the  author's 
position,  which  you  have  mentioned,  of  the  law  considered  as  a  rule 
of  life. 

RuF.  This  seems  unintelligible ;  since  that  position  expressly  res- 
pects the  law  as  a  covenant,  or  as  the  rule  of  justification.  But  if  it 
have  any  meaning  at  all,  it  must  import  their  making  the  moral  law, 
as  it  is  a  rule  of  life  to  the  believer,  a  law  having  a  promise  of  life, 
and  a  threatening  of  death  ;  or  a  law  giving  life  to  them  upon  their 
obedience,  and  denoiuncing  death  and  damnation  to  them  upon  their 
disobedience.  This  turns  the  law  as  a  rule  of  life  in  the  hand  of 
Christ,  into  a  law  or  covenant  of  works,  speaking  life  to  the  doer  and 
death  to  the  transgressor.  I  may  add,  that  the  Associate  Presbyte- 
ry's judgment,  that  the  Assembly  in  this  part  of  their  act  represented 
believers  as  still  under  a  covenant  of  works,  is  much  supported  by 
what  was  formerly  shown  to  be  taught  by  that  Assembly ;  namely, 
That  holy  obedience  is  properly  a  federal  or  conditional  mean,  and 
has  some  kind  of  causality,  in  order  to  the  obtaining  of  eternal  glory. 

On  this  head,  then,  the  Associate  Presbytery  asserted,  1st,  That 
whatever  the  law  as  a  covenant  of  works  promises  or  threatens,  in 
itself,  and  as  to  them  who  are  under  it ;  yet,  as  to  the  believer,  it  is 
really  divested  of  the  promise  of  life  and  threatening  of  death  ;  and 
that  the  believer  holds  his  legal  right  and  claim  to  eternal  life,  only 


340  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

by  the  perfect  obedience  of  Christ  to  the  law  in  his  room ;  and  holds 
his  legal  security  against  eternal  death,  only  by  the  complete  satis- 
faction of  Christ  to  the  justice  of  God  in  the  threatening  of  his  law  ; 
and  not  by  any  law  having  a  promise  of  life  to  his  own  obedience,  or 
a  threatening  of  death  to  his  disobedience.  They  condemned  this 
tenet,  that  the  law,  as  to  believers,  is  vested  with  a  promise  of  life 
and  a  threatening  of  death ;  or  that  their  obedience  is  properly  a  fed- 
eral and  conditional  mean  in  order  to  their  obtaining  eternal  glory. 
They  also  condemned  this  opinion,  that  the  believer's  not  being  under 
the  law,  is  the  same  thing  with  his  not  being  obliged  to  seek  justifica- 
tion by  his  own  obedience ;  as  if  unbelievers,  under  the  gospel  dis- 
pensation, were  equally  free  from  the  commanding  power  of  the  law 
as  a  covenant  of  works,  with  believers. 

2d,  They  asserted,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  believer's  freedom  from 
the  law  as  a  covenant  of  works,  whether  in  its  commanding  or  con- 
demning power,  has  no  tendency  to  licentiousness,  or  to  loose  the  be- 
liever from  the  obligation  of  the  law,  as  it  is  a  rule  of  life ;  and  they 
condemned  the  opinion  of  those,  who  hold  that  this  scriptural  doc- 
trine has  any  such  tendency. 

3d,  They  also  asserted,  that  though  all  unbelievers  do  remain  un- 
der the  law  as  a  covenant,  both  in  its  commanding  and  condemning 
power,  yet  none  of  them  are  obliged  to  seek  justification  by  their  own 
obedience  : — But,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  the  great  duty  of  all  the 
hearers  of  the  gospel,  and  also  their  inestimable  privilege  to  seek 
justification  only  through  the  obedience  and  satisfaction  of  Christ ; 
and  they  condemned  the  opinion,  that  unbelievers,  through  their  be- 
ing under  the  law  as  a  covenant  of  works,  are  obliged  to  seek  justifi- 
cation by  their  own  obedience. 

§  38.  Alex.  Another  charge  which  the  Assembly  brings  against 
the  Marrow  is,  that  the  fear  of  punishment  and  hope  of  reward  ought 
not  to  be  motives  of  a  believer's  obedience.  In  support  of  this 
charge,  they  quote  these  words  of  the  Marrow :  "  Would  you  not 
have  believers  eschew  evil  and  do  good,  for  fear  of  hell,  or  for  hope 
of  heaven  ?  Ans.  No,  indeed ;  I  would  not  have  any  believer  do 
either  the  one  or  the  other  :  for  so  far  forth  as  they  do  so,  their  obe- 
dience is  but  slavish."* 

RuF.  The  true  sense  of  these  and  other  words  of  the  Marrow, 
quoted  by  the  Assembly,  is  clearly  determined  by  passages  connected 
with  them  :  as  when  the  author  says,  "  Though  before  a  man  do  truly 
believe  in  Christ,  he  may  so  reform  his  life  and  amend  his  ways,  that, 
as  touching  the  righteousness  which  is  of  the  law,  he  may  be,  with 
the  apostle,  blameless ;  yet,  being  under  the  covenant  of  works,  all 
the  obedience  that  he  yields  to  the  law,  all  his  avoiding  what  the  law 
forbids,  and  doing  what  the  law  commands,  is  begotten  by  the  law 
of  works  of  Hagar  the  bond  woman,  by  the  force  of  self-love :  and 
so  indeed  they  are  the  fruit  and  works  of  a  bond  servant,  who  is 
*  Chap.  iii.  §  7. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS,  341 

moved  and  constrained  to  all  he  doth  for  fear  of  punishment  and  hope 
of  reward.  And  so  all  that  such  a  man  doth  is  but  hypocrisy  ;  for 
he  pretends  the  serving  of  G-od,  whereas,  indeed,  he  intends  the  serv- 
ing of  himself.  And  how  can  he  do  otherwise?  For  whilst  he 
wants  faith,  he  wants  all  things  :  he  is  an  empty  vine,  and  therefore 
must  needs  bring  forth  fruit  to  himself.  But  when  a  man,  through 
the  hearing  of  faith,  receives  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  Gal.  iii.  2,  the 
Spirit,  according  to  the  measure  of  faith,  writes  the  lively  law  of  love  in 
his  heart ;  whereby  he  is  enabled  to  work  freely,  and  of  his  own  ac- 
cord, without  the  coaction  or  compulsion  of  the  law.  For  the  love 
wherewith  Christ,  or  God  in  Christ,  hath  loved  him,  and  which  by 
faith  is  apprehended  of  him,  will  constrain  him  to  do  so,  according  to 
that  of  the  apostle,  '  The  love  of  Christ  constraineth  us.'  This  is  the 
true  child-like  obedience,  being  begott&n  by  faith,  of  Sarah  the  free 
woman,  by  force  of  God's  love.  And  so  it  is  the  only  true  and  sin- 
cere obedience  ;  for,  as  Dr.  Preston  says,  to  do  a  thing  in  love  is  to 
do  it  in  sincerity."* 

These  and  the  like  passages  of  the  Marrow  show,  that  the  author's 
scope  is  to  put  us  on  our  guard  against  a  mercenary  servile  spirit  in 
our  obedience,  acting  or  bringing  forth  fruit  to  ourselves.  And  to 
extend  the  meaning  of  such  passages  further,  as  if  they  imported  a 
direction  or  exhortation  to  disregard  the  awfulness  of  the  Divine 
threatenings  and  judgments  against  sin,  exciting  to  stand  in  awe  of 
committing  it ;  and  to  forget  the  excellency  of  the  recompence  of  re- 
ward, so  as  not  to  be  animated  thereby  to  the  obedience  of  love,  is 
contrary  to  the  tenor  and  design  of  the  author's  meaning.  Thus 
the  believer's  reward,  which  is  the  enjoyment  of  God  himself,  is  not 
the  reward  of  service  done  by  the  beUever,  and  so  not  the  reward 
of  a  servant ;  but  the  inheritance  of  sons,  secured  to  the  believer 
previous  to  his  obedience.  In  like  manner,  the  believer  ought  to 
have  in  his  eye  the  depth  of  that  misery  from  which  he  has  by  grace 
escaped,  and  to.  regard  the  threatenings  of  that  eternal  wrath  and 
misery,  which  his  sins  in  themselves  deserve ;  that  he  may  be 
thereby  excited  to  adore  the  love  of  his  Redeemer  in  delivering  him 
from  so  great  a  death,  and  to  the  obedience  of  gratitude,  accord- 
ing to  2  Corinthians  v.  14,  15.  The  believer  is  also  bound  to  lay  to 
heart  the  threatenings  of  fatherly  chastisements,  as  evidences  of  his 
Heavenly  Father's  detestation  of  sin,  exciting  him  to  abhor  it  the 
more,  and  as  evidences  of  his  Father's  love  in  correcting  him  for  his 
profit,  that  he  may  be  a  partaker  of  his  holiness.  Such  views  the  be- 
liever ought  to  have  of  what  is  promised  and  of  what  is  threatened. 
But  it  is  quite  another  matter,  and  contrary  to  the  genuine  exercise 
df  the  christian,  as  such,  to  be  influenced  by  the  promise  or  the 
threatening,  as  if  his  obedience  were  the  procuring  cause,  or  a  proper 
federal  ground  or  condition  of  his  freedom  from  punishment,  or  of 
his  enjoyment  of  the  blessing  ;  since  all  boasting  is  excluded  by  the 

*  Chap.  iii.  §  6. 


342  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

gospel,  the  believer's  only  plea  being  of  sovereign  mercy  of  God  in 
Christ.  That  such  is  the  true  sense  of  the  passages  of  the  Marrow, 
referred  to  by  the  Assembly  in  their  acts,  will  not  be  denied  by  any 
attentive  and  candid  reader. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Assembly  appears  to  have  condemned  these 
passages  in  the  sense  now  stated  ;  and  to  have  taught,  that  a  believer 
ought  to  be  swayed  in  his  obedience  by  motives  of  legal  servile  fears 
and  hopes.  For  their  act  in  1722  allows  no  other  legal  servile  hope 
of  heaven,  than  the  hope  of  obtaining  a  right  and  title  to  it  by  our 
own  works ;  insinuating,  that  no  other  regard  to  the  reward  in  our 
obedience,  can  be  reckoned  mercenary  :  and  they  assert,  that  the  hope 
of  obtaining  the  possession  and  enjoyment  of  heaven  by  our  own  obe- 
dience, is  not  mercenary;  though  our  obedience  be,  at  the  same 
time,  considered  as  properly  a  federal  and  conditional  mean  and  cause 
of  their  enjoying  eternal  life.  Thus,  they  divide  the  glory  of  our  en- 
joying salvation  between  Christ  and  the  creature,  as  to  the  ground 
of  our  hope  of  it. 

True  spiritual  obedience  flows  from  love  to  Christ,  casting  out  fear 
of  wrath  and  punishment,  which  necessarily  hath  torment  in  it.  Nor 
is  it  influenced  by  any  servile  legal  hope  of  reward ;  ©r  any  view  of 
a  legal  or  federal  connection  between  the  obedience,  and  the  enjoy- 
ment of  the  inheritance,  which  is  by  promise  alone. 

Alex.^  Some  of  the  texts  quoted  by  the  Assembly  represent  fear 
as  a  motive  to  obedience,  2  Corinth,  v.  11,  "Knowing  the  terror  of 
the  Lord,  we  persuade  men :"  Heb.  xii.  28,  29,  "  Let  us  serve  God 
acceptably  with  reverence  and  godly  fear;  for  our  God  is  a  continu- 
ing fire."  And  some  of  these  texts  represent  the  prospect  of  the 
great  reward  as  the  motive  to  it ;  CoUos.  iii.  24,  "  Knowing  that  of 
the  Lord  ye  shall  receive  the  reward  of  the  inheritance  :"  Heb.  xi. 
26,  '*  He  had  respect  unto  the  recompence  of  the  reward." 

Rup.  With  regard  to  these  texts  that  speak  (?f  the  fear  with  which 
believers  should  be  moved  in  serving  the  Lord,  though  the  majesty 
of  God  and  the  awfulness  of  his  threatenings  and  judgments  should 
fill  the  believer  with  reverential  fear,  and  lead  him  to  a  humbling  con- 
sideration of  what  his  sins  deserve ;  yet  he  is  not  called  to  be  moved 
or  excited  to  obedience  by  the  fear  of  his  falling  into  hell  for  omit- 
ting duty  or  committing  sin  ;  but  is  ever  called  to  believe  his  infalli- 
ble security  against  going  down  into  that  pit,  through  the  ransom, 
which  God  has  found.  A  filial  fear  of  God  and  of  his  fatherly  dis- 
pleasure is  worthy  of  the  believer,  being  a  fruit  of  faith  and  of  the 
spirit  of  adoption  ;  but  [o.  slavish  fear  of  hell  and  wrath,  from  which 
he  is  delivered  by  Christ,  is  not  a  fruit  of  faith,  but  of  unbelief.  The 
fear  which  Christ  commands,  of  him  who  can  cast  both  soul  and  body 
into  hell,  is  not  a  slavish  fear  of  the  wrath  to  come  ;  but  such  as  is 
consistent  with  the  faith  of  deliverance  from  it.  With  regard  to  those 
scriptures  which  set  forth  the  everlasting  inheritance  under  the  notion 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  343 

of  a  reward,  since  this  reward,  being  infinite,  could  only  be  purchased 
by  an  infinite  price,  even  the  price  given  by  Immanuel.  This  reward 
is  declared  to  be  given  to  us,  not  of  debt,  but  of  grace,  to  him  that 
werketh  not,  but  believeth  on  him  that  justifieth  t^e  ungodly :  it  is 
the  gift  of  God,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  Thus  the  believer, 
in  his  respect  to  this  recompence  of  reward,  is  called  to  act,  not  for 
life,  as  the  the  reward  of  his  service  ;  but  from  the  faith  of  his  certain 
enjoyment  of  that  life,  as  the  reward  of  the  service  of  the  new  Cove- 
nant Head.  And  the  more  he  views  it,  the  more  he  should  and  will 
be  animated  to  cheerful  obedience. 

The  Associate  Presbytery,  therefore,  condemned  the  two  following 
propositions  :  1.  That  there  is  legal  connection  instituted,  between 
the  obedience  of  believers,  and  their  enjoying  rewards  or  escaping 
punishments,  temporal  or  eternal ;  that  the  Lord  deals  with  them  in 
this  matter  upon  law-terms  ;  and  that  hopes  of  enjoying  the  one 
and  of  escaping  the  other,  are  to  rise  and  fall  according  to  the  mea- 
sure of  their  obedience. 

2.  That  a  person's  being  moved  to  obedience  by  the  hope  of 
heaven,  cannot  be  said  to  be  mercenary,  in  any  other  sense  than  that 
of  obtaining  a  right  and  title  to  it  by  his  own  works  ;  and  that  a  be- 
liever ought  to  be  moved  to  obedience,  or  to  eschew  evil  and  do 
good,  by  the  hopes  of  his  enjoying  heaven,  or  any  good,  temporal  or 
eternal,  by  his  own  obedience,  as  the  federal,  conditional  mean  and 
cause  thereof. 

§  39.  Alex.  Another  charge  against  the  Marrow  is,  the  defend- 
ing of  six  Antinomian  paradoxes,  by  applying  to  them  the  distinc- 
tion between  the  law  of  works  and  the  law  of  Christ.  The  paradox- 
es are  these  :  1.  "  That  a  believer  is  not  under  the  law,  but  is  alto- 
gether delivered  from  it."  2.  "  That  a  believer  doth  not  commit 
sin.''  3,  "  That  the  Lord  can  see  no  sin  in  a  believer."  4.  ''  That  the 
Lord  is  not  angry  with  a  believer  for  his  sins. "  5.  '^  That  the 
Lord  does  not  chastise  a  believer  for  his  sins."  6.  ''  That  a  believer 
has  no  cause  either  to  confess  his  sins,  or  to  crave  pardon  at  the 
hands  of  God  for  them ;  or  yet  to  fast  or  mourn,  or  humble  him- 
self before  the  Lord  for  them.''  Are  not  these  expressions  most  un- 
justifiable ? 

RuF.  The  author  of  the  Marrow  says,  concerning  these  proposi- 
tions, "  That  in  one  sense,  they  may  all  of  them  be  truly  affirmed  ; 
and  in  another  sense,  they  may  all  of  them  be  truly  denied  :"  and 
for  showing  in  what  sense  he  admits,  and  in  what  sense  he  rejects 
these  propositions,  he  distinguishes  between  the  law,  as  it  is  the  law 
of  works,  which  he  explains  to  be  the  law  considered  as  a  covenant 
of  works  ;  and  the  law  as  it  is  the  law  of  Christ,  by  which  he  under- 
stands the  law  considered  as  a  rule  of  obedience  in  the  hand  of  Christ, 
who  hath,  as  their  surety,  fulfilled  the  righteousness  of  the  law-cov- 
enant in  the  stead  of  his  people. 


344  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

Alex.  Is  it  necessary  to  maintain  this  distinction  as  scriptural  ? 

RuF.  It  is  carefully  to  be  maintained.  If  we  lose  this  distinction, 
we  will  lose  several  sweet  gospel  truths  along  with  it.  For  exam- 
ple, if  we  make  no  difference  between  the  law  as  a  covenant,  and  the 
law  as  a  rule  of  life  to  believers  in  the  hand  of  Christ;  it  will  follow 
that  believers  are  still  under  the  law  as  a  covenant,  contrary  to  scrip- 
ture, Rom.  vi.  14,  and  vii.  3.  It  will  also  follow,  that  the  sins  of 
believers,  being  branches  of  the  covenant  of  works,  not  only  deserve 
the  everlasting  wrath  of  God,  which  is  a  most  certain  truth  ;  but 
also  make  them  liable  to  actual  condemnation,  contrary  to  Rom.  viii. 
1,  and  Psal.  xxxii.  1,  2. 

Alex.  What  the  Assembly  said,  concerning  this  distinction  be- 
tween the  law  of  works  and  the  law  of  Christ  was.  That  it  is  ground- 
less, as  applied  by  the  author  of  the  Marrow,  to  defend  six  Antino- 
mian  paradoxes.  Now,  what  were  the  truths  taught  by  the  author's 
application  of  the  said  distinction  to  these  paradoxes  ? 

RuF.  The  first  of  these  truths  is,  That  believers  are  not  under  the 
law  as  a  covenant,  but  are  altogether  freed  from  it ;  though  they  are 
still  under  it  as  a  rule  of  obedience.  The  second  is,  That  a  believer 
does  not  commit  sin,  as  it  is  a  transgression  of  the  law  of  works  ;  but 
when  he  sinneth,  he  transgresseth  the  law,  considered  as  a  rule  of 
holiness  in  the  hand  of  a  Mediator.  The  third  is.  That  God  sees  no 
sin  in  a  justified  believer  under  the  covert  of  the  perfect  righteous- 
ness of  Christ,  as  a  transgression  of  the  law  of  works  ;  though  he 
still  sees  it  and  marks  it,  as  a  transgression  of  the  law  of  Christ.  The 
fourth  is,  That  the  Lord  is  not  angry  with  a  believer  for  his  sins 
with  a  vindictive  wrath,  but  with  a  fatherly  displeasure.  The  fifth 
is,  That  the  Lord  doth  not  chastise  a  believer  for  his  sins,  as  an  im- 
plicable  enemy  with  law- vengeance,  but  with  the  rod  of  a  father,  not 
for  their  destruction,  but  for  their  reformation.  The  sixth  is,  That 
though  the  sins  of  believers,  considered  as  transgression  of  the  law 
or  covenant  of  works,  deserve  eternal  death  ;  and  though  they  are 
even  many  ways  aggravated  above  the  sins  of  others  ;  yet,  seeing 
their  sins,  considered  as  transgressions  of  the  law  or  covenant  of 
works,  were  laid  upon  Christ ;  a  believer,  when  he  fasts  and  mourns 
and  confesseth  his  sins,  ought  to  view  them  as  laid  upon  Christ ;  and 
believing  the  forgiveness  of  them  and  his  deliverance  from  the  com- 
manding and  condemning  power  of  the  law  of  works  through  the  im- 
puted righteousness  of  Christ,  he  is  to  fast  and  mourn  for  and  confess 
his  sins,  as  they  affect  himself  in  his  justified  state,  not  as  violations 
of  the  law  of  works,  but  only  as  violations  of  the  law  in  the  hand  of 
a  Mediator,  and  as  committed  against  and  tending  to  dishonor  his 
reconciled  God  and  Father  in  Christ. 

Alex.  Was  the  Assembly  chargeable  with  any  error  in  condemn- 
ing the  application  of  the  distinction  between  the  law  of  works  and 
the  law  of  Chi'ist,  to  palliate  the  expressions  used  in  these  para- 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  345 

doxes  ?  This  was  perhaps  all  that  Mr.  Willison  had  in  view,  when 
he  said,  that  some  assertions,  in  the  Associate  Presbytery's  act  con- 
cerning the  doctrine  of  grace,  bordered  too  near  the  doctrine  called 
Antinomian. 

RuF.  The  Antinomian  sense  of  these  six  propositions,  as  Mr.  Bos- 
ton in  his  notes  on  the  Marrow  observes,  is,  no  doubt,  erroneous  and 
detestable,  and  is  opposed  and  sufficiently  confuted  by  the  Marrow. 
But  this  perversion  of  them  could  not  warrant  the  Assembly  to  con- 
demn the  propositions  themselves  simpliciter  or  absolutely,  as  Anti- 
nomian errors.     One  might  as  well  say,  That  it  is  a  Popish  or  Lu- 
theran error,  to  call  the  bread,  in  the  Lord's  supper,  Christ's  body  ; 
or  that  this  proposition,  A  sinner  is  justified  by  faith,  is  a  Socinian, 
Arminian  or  Baxterian  error,  on  account  of  the  heterodox  construc- 
tion put  upon  that  expression,  by  persons  of  such  denominations. 
Four  of  these  propositions  are  in  the  express  words  of  Scripture,  and 
therefore  must  have  a  sound  sense.     The  first  is  found  in  Rom.  vii. 
6,  ''  Now  we  are  delivered  from  the  law."     The  second  in  I  John  iii. 
6,  ''Whosoever  abideth  in  him,  sinneth  not :''  verse  9th,  "Whoso- 
ever is  born  of  God,  doth  not  commit  sin  ;"— and  he  cannot  sin. 
The  third  in  Numb,  xxiii.   21,  "  He  hath  not  beheld  iniquity  in  Ja- 
cob, neither  hath  he  seen  perverseness  in  Israel :"  Song  iv.  7,  "  Thou 
art  all  fair,  my  love  ;  there  is  no  spot  in  thee."     The  fifth  and  sixth 
of  these  propositions  are  also  to  be  accounted  scriptural,  as  necessari- 
ly following  from  the  former.     The  expressions  are  not  to  be  rejected, 
but  to  be  interpreted  and  defended  according  to  the  analogy  of  faith. 
But  there  are  six  erroneous  and  dangerous  positions,  which  the  As- 
sociate Presbytery  co«nsider  as  taught  by  the  Assembly  in  their  con- 
demnation of  these  paradoxes ;  viz.   1st,  That  believers  are  not  alto- 
gether freed  from  the  law  as  a  covenant  of  works,  but  are-  still  un- 
der it.     2d,  That  when  a  believer  sins,  he  sins  against  the  law  of 
works  ;  and  therefore  must  be  liable  to  the  penalty  of  it.     3d,  That 
God  seeth  iniquity  in  believers,  as  it  is  a  violation  of  the  old  cove- 
nant, and  consequently,  that  he  seeth  it  with  an  eye  of  vindictive 
justice  ;  notwithstanding  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  and  their  being 
under  the  covert  of   his  law-magnifying  righteousness.     4th,  That 
when  God  is  angry  with  believers  for  their  sins,  he  pursues  them  upon 
the  footing  of  the  law  of  works ;  that  is,  with  the  same  vindictive 
wrath  with  which  he  pursued  the  Surety,  when  he  was  made  a  curse 
for  them.     5th  That  when  God  corrects  his  children,  he  does  it  in  his 
vindictive  and  revenging  wrath,  and  not  in  a  way  of  fatherly  chastise- 
ment.    6th,  That  when  a  believer  fasts,  mourns  and  confesseth  sin, 
and  seeks  the  pardon  of  it ;  he  is  to  view  himself  as  still  under  the 
guilt  of  the  violation  of  the  law  of  works  ;  notwithstanding  his  being 
dead  to  that  law,  through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ, 

§  40.  Alex.  I  see,  that  the  Associate  Presbytery  have  levelled 
their  act  against  legahsm  :  but  were  they  as  zealous  to  warn  people 


346  ALEXANDER  AND  BUFUS. 

of  the  strong  propensity  of  corrupt  nature  to  turn  the  grace  of  God 
into  licentiousness  ?  Were  they  as  careful  to  maintain  the  authority 
of  his  holy  law,  as  a  rule  of  duty  under  the  gospel  ? 

KuF.  While  it  is  often  peculiarly  necessary  to  explain  and  vindi- 
cate some  article  of  religion  which  is  chiefly  attacked,  it  is  a  common 
artifice  of  Satan,  and  of  the  opposers  of  such  an  article,  to  represent 
it  as  of  little  importance  ;  and  to  insinuate,  that  the  maintenance  of 
it  is  inconsistent  with  the  attention  which  ought  to  be  bestowed  on 
matters  of  more  importance  ;  and  particularly  that,  when  ministers 
dwell  much  on  the  doctrine  of  grace,  they  neglect  to  inculcate  the  du- 
ties of  an  holy  practice.  The  Associate  Presbytery,  aware  of  this, 
and  sensible  that  the  propensity  of  man's  depraved  nature  to  establish 
his  own  righteousness  as  the  ground  of  hope,  and  his  aversion  to  the 
holiness  of  the  Divine  law,  are  equally  strong,  have  all  along  explain- 
ed the  doctrine  of  grace,  as  affording  the  most  powerful  incitements 
to  the  study  of  holiness  in  heart  and  life.  Besides,  they  have  added 
two  distinct  articles  on  obedience  to  the  law. 

The  first  article  proposes  several  considerations  showing,  that  the 
law  is  obligatory  as  a  rule  of  duty  under  the  gospel.  The  first  of 
these  considerations  is.  That  the  law  of  the  Creator  is  now  issued 
forth  to  us  in  the  hand  of  the  Mediator ;  and  that  we  are  to  eye  the 
authority  of  God  in  him,  hearing  him  as  the  King  whom  God  hath 
set  upon  his  holy  hill  of  Zion.  Hence,  the  law  is  called  the  law  of 
Christ :  Gal.  vi.  2  ;  John  xiv.  15  ;  1  Cor.  ix.  21.  The  second  con- 
sideration they  propose,  is  this  :  That  the  Lord  enforces  obedience 
to  the  law  upon  evangelical,  and  so  upon  everlasting  grounds.  Thus, 
in  the  preface  to  the  ten  commandments,  obedience  is  enjoined,  first, 
on  the  ground  of  the  infinite  sovereignty  of  God  as  Jehovah  ;  and 
then,  on  the  ground  of  his  gracious  relation  to  us  in  Christ  as  our 
God  ;  and,  lastly,  on  the  ground  of  the  glorious  work,  of  man's  re- 
demption by  Jesus  Christ.  The  tliii^d  consideration  is,  That  the  end 
of  Christ's  coming  was  not  to  destroy  the  law,  but  to  fulfil  and  estab- 
lish it.  The  fourth  is,  That  obedience  or  conformity  to  the  law,  is 
one  of  the  great  ends  of  our  redemption  by  Jesus  Christ.  He  died 
not  to  procure  a  liberty  to  sin,  but  a  liberty  from  sin.  Dan.  ix.  24  ; 
1  John  iii.  1,  6.  The  fifth  is.  That  all  the  followers  of  Christ  are 
expressly  required  to  remember  the  law  of  Moses  ;  Mai.  iv.  4. 
Such  a  regard  had  Christ  to  this  law,  that  he  went  through  a  course 
of  perfect  obedience  to  it,  not  only  that  he  might  fulfil  it  in  our 
stead,  but  that  he  might  set  us  an  example  of  perfect  holiness.  He 
requires  all  who  are  called  by  his  name,  to  depart  from  all  iniquity, 
and  to  be  holy  as  he  is  holy.  He  declares,  that  except  their  faith 
in  him  bring  forth  the  fruits  of  obedience  to  his  law,  their  faith  is 
dead ;  and  that  at  the  last  day,  their  faith  in  him  will  be  evidenced 
by  the  fruits  of  it. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  347 

The  second  article  shows  the  nature  of  evangelical  obedience  to  the 
law.  Here  it  is  observed,  1.  That  the  leading  principle  of  this  obe- 
dience is  faith  in  Jesus  Christ.  By  faith  the  soul  is  united  to  Christ 
as  a  Head  of  influence,  as  well  as  of  government.  Hence,  all  acts  of 
obedience  in  believers,  are  acts  of  Christ  living  in  them,  Gal.  ii.  2. 
2.  That  the  motives  exciting  to  evangelical  obedience  are  taken  from 
the  gospel :  such  as  the  consideration  of  the  grace,  love  and  mercy  of  God 
manifested  in  Christ.  3.  That  gospel  obedience  is  influenced  by  evan- 
gelical afi'ections.  The  love  of  self  influences  the  obedience  of  the  le- 
galist, but  the  love  of  Christ  constrains  the  believer ;  and  this  love 
begets  delight,  a  ready  mind,  zeal,  filial  fear.  4.  That  gospel  obedi- 
ence is  to  be  performed  for  gospel  ends. — Christ  must  be  the  begin- 
ning and  the  ending  of  all  we  do.  Legal  ends  are  to  be  avoided,such 
as,  that  by  our  acts  of  obedience  we  may  make  atonement,  either  in 
whole  or  in  part,  for  our  sins ;  that  we  may  be  justified  or  accepted 
before  God  ;  that  God  may  be  moved  by  our  duties  to  bestow  his 
mercies  upon  us ;  that  we  may  give  to  God  a  requital  or  recompence 
for  his  mercies  ;  that  our  obedience  to  the  law  may  be  any  federal  or 
conditional  mean  in  order  to  our  possession  of  eternal  glory. 

§  4L  Before  we  put  an  end  to  this  conversation,  I  would  take  no- 
tice of  an  act  of  the  Associate  Synod  in  the  year  It 54,  which  must  be 
considered  as  belonging  to  the  doctrine  of  grace.  It  is  entitled,  an 
Act  of  the  Associate  Synod,  containing  an  assertion  of  some  gospel 
traths,  in  opposition  to  Arminian  errors,  on  the  head  of  universal  re- 
demption.    It  consists  of  seven  articles. 

The  first  article  asserts,  that,  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  our  Lord 
Jesus  became  the  federal  head  and  representative  of  those  only  among 
mankind-sinners,  whom  God  hath,  out  of  his  mere  good  pleasure, 
from  all  eternity  elected  to  everlasting  life  :  and  that  he  was  made  an  un- 
dertaking surety  for  them  only. 

It  is  a  v^ry  important  truth,  that  Christ  was  constituted  in  the  co- 
venant of  grace  from  eternity  the  federal  head  and  representative  of 
his  people ;  as  Adam,  after  his  creation,  was  constituted  the  federal 
head  and  representative  of  his  natural  posterity,  in  the  covenant  of 
works.  In  this  respect,  Christ  is  called  the  second  man,  in  contra- 
distinction to  the  first  man,  1  Cor.  xv.  45,  4t.  As  Adam  was  made 
the  representative  of  his  natural  seed  in  the  covenant  of  works,  so 
Christ  was  made  the  representative  of  his  spiritual  seed  in  the  cove- 
nant of  grace.  Hence,  Christ  bears  the  name  of  his  people  in  these 
words  of  the  Father  to  him,  ''Thou  art  my  servant,  O  Israel,  in  whom 
I  will  be  glorified,"  Isaiah  xlix.  3.  When  the  scripture  says,  that 
''  grace  was  given  his  people  in  Christ  Jesus  before  the  world  began ;" 
and  that  ''  God  chose  them  in  Christ  before  the  foundation  of  the 
World  ;"  it  must  mean,  2  Tim.  i.  9.  that  they  were  stated  "in  him," 
as  their  federal  representative,  from  eternity  ;  in  order  to  their  future 
being  in  him  in  their  mystical  union  with  him,  in  time. 


348  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

Alex.  Some  deny,  that  we  may  consider  his  people  in  him  as  their 
federal  representative,  before  or  in  order  to  his  satisfaction  for  sin. 

E.UF.  Why  then  does  he  bear  the  character  of  an  undertaking  surety  ? 
In  every  case  of  suretyship,  the  law  first  considers  some  person  as 
bearing  that  character,  and  therefore  as  one  with  the  party  for  whom 
he  hes  become  a  surety,  before  it  deal  with  him  as  such,  in  exacting 
from  him  the  pa3mient  of  any  debt,  due  from  that  party.  So  the  law 
of  God  could  not  be  considered  as  requiring  of  the  Lord  Jesus  any 
doing  or  suffering  in  answer  to  the  demands  which  it  had  on  his  peo- 
ple, before  it  considered  him  as  having  become  their  surety. 

§  42.  The  second  article  asserts,  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  re- 
deemed none  others  by  his  death  but  the  elect  only.  According  to 
Isai.  liii.  4,  5,  6,  8,  the  persons  whose  iniquities  he  bore,  as  having 
been  laid  on  him,  for  whose  transgression  he  was  stricken,  were  per- 
sons whom  the  Lord  distinguishes  from  others  as  his  people  ;  who,  in 
the  event,  are  healed  by  his  stripes  ;  characters,  which  belong  to  the 
elect  only. 

When  our  Lord  says,  in  John  x.  15,  "I  lay  down  my  life  for  the 
sheep  ;"  and  in  chap.  xvii.  19,  '*  For  their  sakes  I  sanctify  myself,  that 
they  also  may  be  sanctiSed  through  the  truth  ;"  if  it  might  be  suppo- 
ed  that  he  died  for  others  besides  those  who  are  called  his  sheep,  or 
whom  he  sanctified  ;  then,  it  would  follow,  that  in  these  texts  he  gives 
but  a  partial  and  defective  account  of  those  for  whom  he  died,  with- 
out signifying  that  he  does  so  : — Nay,  on  this  supposition,  it  would 
be  a  vain  and  delusive  account :  because  it  represents  that  as  the  great 
and  distinguishing  pledge  of  his  love  to  his  sheep,  which  likewise  be- 
longed to  such  as  were  not  his  sheep. 

Alex.  The  apostle  says,  in  1  Tim.  ii.  5,  "  He  gave  himself  a  ran- 
som for  all." 

RuF.  That  the  general  term  all,  here  refers  to  men  of  all  sorts,  is 
evident,  from  the  use  of  it  in  the  context ;  in  which  christians  are  ex- 
horted to  pray  and  give  thanks  for  all  men  ;  for  men  of  all  outward 
sorts  or  denominations,  or  any  of  such  indefinitely.  Hence,  the  ally 
in  this  text,  are  called  many,  in  the  parallel  place,  Math.  xx.  28.  Our 
confession  says  well.  They  who  are  elected,  being  fallen  in  Adam,  are 
redeemed  by  Christ :  nor  are  any  other  redeemed  by  Christ,  but  the 
elect  only. 

§  43.  In  the  third  article,  it  is  asserted,  that  Christ  died  out  of  the 
greatest  special  love,  for  all  in  whose  room  he  laid  down  his  life,  with 
an  intention  of  having  them  all  effectually  redeemed  and  saved  to  the 
glory  of  his  grace  :  Ephes.  v.  23,  "  Christ  loved  the  church,  and  gave 
himself  for  it,  that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it:"  1  Johniv.  10, 
"  Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved  Grod,  but  that  he  loved  us,  and 
sent  his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for  our  sins  :"  John  xv.  18,  "  Great- 
er love  hath  no  man  than  this,  that  a  man  lay  down  his  life  for  his 
friends:"  Rom.  v.  8,  '^But  God  commendeth  his  love  towards  us,  in 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  349 

that,  while  we  were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died  for  us — verse  9,  "  Much 
more  being  now  justified  by  his  blood,  we  shall  be  saved  from  wrath 
through  him,"  According  to  these  texts,  God's  sending  his  Son  to 
die  for  any,  is  the  greatest  effect  of  his  special  love  to  them  ;  and  that 
by  which  all  other  effects  of  his  love  are  fully  secured  unto  their  eter- 
nal salvation. 

§  44.  The  fourth  article  asserts,  that  the  intercession  of  Christ  is 
infallibly  of  the  same  extent  in  respect  of  its  objects,  with  the  atone- 
ment and  satisfaction  made  in  his  death.  So  that  he  actually  and  ef- 
fectually makes  intercession  for  all  those  for  whom  he  laid  down  his 
life,  or  for  whom  he  hath  purchased  redemption,  that  it  may  be  fully 
applied  to  them  all  in  due  season.  Rom.  viii.  34,  "  Who  is  he  that 
condemneth  ?  It  is  Christ  that  died,  yea,  rather  that  is  risen  again 
who  is  ever  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  who  also  maketh  intercession 
for  us."  The  nature  of  Christ's  priesthood  requires,  that  his  atone- 
men,  and  intercession  be  of  the  same  extent,  as  to  the  objects  of  them  ; 
while  his  intercession  is  just  the  appearance  that  he  makes  in  heaven 
as  their  Mediator,  Heb.  ix.  24.  The  high  priest  under  the  law  made 
a  typical  appearance  within  the  vail,  for  all  those  for  whom  he  made 
a  typical  atonement  without  the  vail.  But  if  Christ  has  made  an 
atonement  for  many,  for  whom  he  does  not  now  appear  in  the  presence 
of  God,  then  his  priesthood,  instead  of  excelling,  falls  greatly  short  of 
the  type.  Besides,  this  supposition  represents  him  as  declining  from 
the  love,  out  of  which  he  laid  down  his  life,  in  neglecting  the  most 
part  of  those  for  whom  he  did  so  :  nay,  as  becoming  negligent  and 
unfaithful  about  what  he  has  merited  by  his  death  for  many.  But  it 
is  evident,  that  they  for  whom  Christ  makes  intercession  are  not  all 
ment,  but  those  whom  the  Father  gave  to  Christ  Jesus,  John  xvii.  9, 
23  ;  those  whom  he  saves  to  the  uttermost,  Heb.  vii.  25  ;  that  is, 
they  are  the  elect  only. 

§  45.  The  fifth  article  declares  that  the  death  of  Christ,  as  it  is  sta- 
ted in  the  covenant  of  grace,  hath  a  necessary,  inseparable,  certain, 
and  infallible  connection  with,  and  efficacy  for,  the  actual  and  complete 
salvation  of  all  those  for  whom  he  died.  So  that  redemption  is  cer- 
tainly applied  and  effectually  communicated  to  all  those  for  whom 
Christ  purchased  it ;  to  all  in  whose  stead  he  died,  being  in  due  time, 
effectually  called,  justified,  adopted,  sanctified,  and  glorified. 

1.  The  infallible  connection  between  the  death  of  Christ  and  the 
actual  and  complete  salvation  of  those  for  whom  he  died,  is  the  neces- 
sary consequence  of  the  promise  made  to  Christ  of  his  seeing  his  seed, 
of  his  seeing  the  travail  of  his  soul,  of  their  justification  as  the  sure 
effect  of  his  bearing  their  iniquities,  Isai.  liii.  10,  11. 

2.  This  connection  appears  from  those  texts  which  represent  the 
death  of  Christ  as  a  redemption.  For  the  immediate  effect  of  re- 
demption, or  of  the  payment  of  a  ransom,  is  the  certain  deliverance 
of  the  captive,  and  not  a  mere  possibility  of  deliverance  :  Ephes.  i.  7, 


350  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

''  In  whom  we  have  redemption  through  his  blood  :''  Heb.  ix.  12, 
"  He  entered  in  once  into  the  holy  place,  having  obtained  eternal  re- 
demption for  us." 

3.  This  connection  appears  from  those  texts  which  represent  the 
promised  blessings  of  the  covenant  of  grace  as  the  certain  fruit  of  the 
death  of  Christ ;  such  as  reconciliation  to  Grod  and  justification  :  Rom. 
V.  8,  9,  10,  "  Grod  commendeth  his  love  towards  us,  in  that  while  we 
were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died  for  us.  Much  more,  being  now  justified 
by  his  blood,  we  shall  be  saved  from  wrath  through  him.  "When  we 
were  enemies,  we  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son. 
Adoption,  Gal.  iv.  4,  5,  "  God  sent  forth  his  Son  to  redeem  them 
that  were  under  the  law,  that  we  may  receive  the  adoption  of  sons." 
Faith,  Philip,  i.  29,  ^'  Unto  you  it  is  given  on  the  behalf  of  Christ  to 
believe  on  him."  Sanctification,  John  xvii.  19,  "  For  their  sakes  I  sanc- 
tify myself,  that  they  afeo  may  be  sanctified  through  the  truth."  The 
privilege  of  being  made  kings  and  priests  unto  God,  Rev.  v.  9,  10. 

Hence  appears  the  pernicious  tendency  of  the  scheme  of  univ-ersal 
redemption  ;  as  thereby  the  death  of  Christ  is  set  forth  as  having  no 
certain  connection  with  the  salvation  of  any.  Thus  persons  are  indu- 
ced to  attempt  to  get  some  intervening  exereises  or  endeavors,  such 
as  earnest  concern  about  sin  and  salvation,  pleadings,  desire  and  de- 
light, that  may  serve  to  establish  a  connection  between  the  blood  of 
Christ  and  salvation  ;  in  order  that  they  may,  reasonably,  infer  the 
latter  from  the  former.  When  persons  take  this  method,  it  is  evi- 
dentj  that  the  immediate  ground  of  their  faith  and  hope  of  salvation, 
is  not  the  blood  of  Christ,  but  their  own  intervening  exercises  and 
endeavors.  Their  hope  of  salvation,  in  this  case,  has  its  immediate 
dependence  on  themselves,  on  some  works  of  righteousness  which 
they  have  done.  This  is  a  scheme  for  turning  away  sinners  from  the 
covenant  of  grace  to  seek  justification  and  salvation  in  the  way  of 
the  covenant  of  works.  For  "  if  it  be  of  works,  then  it  is  no  more 
of  grace,"  Rom.  xi.  6.  Many  in  our  day  hold  universal  redemption, 
who  profess  to  reject  the  other  Arminian  articles.  But  they  neither 
consider  how  contrary  the  scheme  of  universal  redemption,  or,  as 
they  now  term  it,  a  universal  ransom,  is  in  itself  to  the  scripture  ac- 
count of  the  vicarious  nature  and  proper  ends  of  Christ's  death  :  nor 
how  closely  it  is  connected  with  the  other  Arminian  tenets. 

The  truth  on  this  head  is  expressed  in  these  words  of  the  Larger 
Catechism  :*' Christ,  by  his  mediation,  hath  procured  redemption 
with  all  other  benefits  of  the  covenant  of  grace,* 

§  46.  In  the  sixth  article,  there  are  several  positions  necessary  to 
be  attended  to  on  this  subject ;  such  as,  1.  That  Christ  and  his  ben- 
efits cannot  be  divided.     These  benefits  are  given  along  with  him, 
.  Rom.  viii.  32.     Persons  come  to  the  enjoyment  of  them,  when  they 

*  Larg  Cat.  quest.  57. 


ALEXANDER  AND   RUFUS.  351 

are  called  effectually  to  the  fellowship  of  Christ,  and  not  otherwise, 
1  Corinth.  I  9.  When  Christ  is  ours,  then^all  his  benefits  are  ours, 
Song  ii.  16 ;  1  Corinth,  i.  30  :  and  whoever  actively  receives  or  en- 
joys his  benefits,  does  so  in  the  way  of  enjoying  himself. 

2.  That  the  benefits  of  Christ's  purchase  cannot  be  divided  one 
from  another.  Those  who  come  to  partake  of  any  of  these  benefits 
by  faith,  are  sealed  with  the  holy  Spirit  of  promise  ;  a  sealing  which 
is  the  earnest  of  the  inheritance,  Eph.  i.  13.  They  are  regenerated, 
justified,  and  made  heirs,  according  to  the  hope  of  eternal  life,  Tit. 
iil  5,  G,  7. 

3.  Whatever  things  are  actively  received,  or  used,  otherwise  than 
by  faith  in  a  state  of  union  with  Christ,  are  not  to  be  reckoned 
among  the  benefits  purchased  by  his  death.  Hence  it  is  contrary  to 
the  scriptures  to  represent  the  common  benefits  of  life  as  purchased 
for  all  men  by  the  death  of  Christ,  and  enjoyed  by  them  as  such. 
No  other  things  can  be  properly  reckoned  among  the  benefits  of 
Christ's  purchase,  than  such  things  as  could  not  be  bestowed  upon 
men,  consistently  with  the  claims  of  God's  vindictive  justice,  without 
a  satisfaction.  Believers,  indeed,  have  all  the  conmon  benefits  of  the 
present  life,  and  likewise  all  the  crosses  and  trials  of  it  through  Christ 
as  Mediator,  in  the  channel  of  new  covenant  promises,  with  a  new 
covenant  blessing  upon  them.  But  the  common  benefits  of  life,  con- 
sidered in  respect  of  the  peculiar  conveyance  of  them  to  believers,  are 
not  things  of  this  world,  but  of  a  supernatural,  spiritual  and  gracious 
character ;  and,  in  this  respect,  are  things  that  are  received  by  faith. 
Some  have  supposed  that  the  outward  privileges  of  the  church  are 
benefits  of  Christ's  purchase  ;  and  yet  are  common  to  all  within  the 
visible  church,  unbelievers  as  well  as  believers.  But  though  all 
within  the  visible  church  have  access  to  her  privileges  -,  yet  they  are 
truly,  and  in  effect,  benefits  to  none  but  real  and  sincere  church  mem- 
bers, or  true  believers.  The  inward  saving  effects,  indeed,  of  these 
outward  privileges  upon  the  Lord's  people,  with  the  special  blessing 
thereby  communicated  to  them,  are  benefits  purchased  by  the  death 
of  Christ.  But,  with  regard  to  the  outward  privileges  themselves,  it 
may  be  observed,  that  as  the  purport  of  them  is  only  God's  prescrib- 
ing duty  in  the  gospel  call,  and  his  declaring  our  obligation  to  com- 
ply with  it,  they  cannot  be  considered  as  the  purchase  of  Christ. 
We  may  not  conclude,  that  every  thing  which  is  a  me^n  of  salvation 
is  purchased  by  the  death  of  Christ.  The  doctrines  and  promises, 
the  precepts  of  the  Bible  are  means  of  salvation  ;  but  it  would  be  ab- 
surd to  say,  that  they  were  all  purchased  by  the  death  of  Christ. 
Though  all  promised  blessings  were  purchased,  yet  the  promises  them- 
selves were  not  purchased.  All  the  outward  means  of  grace  and  sal- 
vation, in  the  dispensation  of  gospel  ordinances,  belong  to  the  exercise 
of  Christ's  prophetical  and  kingly  offices.  But  neither  were  the  me- 
diatory offices  of  Christ,  nor,  strictly  speaking,  the  exercise  of  them, 


352  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

any  more  tban  his  incarnation,  purchased  by  his  death.  Nor  are  any 
spiritual  influences  or  gifts  to  be  reckoned  among  the  benefits  of  his 
purchase,  but  such  as  are  saving,  or  so  far  as  they  are  of  a  saving 
nature  or  effect.  The  common  influences  and  gifts  of  the  Spirit  in 
unbelievers,  are  things  which  do  not  imply  any  special  favor  or  ac- 
ceptance with  God ;  they  are  things  which  could  be  granted  to  sin- 
ners consistently  with  the  claims  of  law  and  justice,  without  a  satis- 
faction }  and  therefore,  even  to  such  sinners  as  remain  forever  under 
the  curse.  Many  influences  of  the  Spirit  upon  unbelievers  are  in- 
stances of  God's  contending  with  them  in  the  way  of  rebuking,  check- 
ing and  restraining  them.  But  surely  God  did  not  need  the  purchase 
of  Christy  in  order  that  he  might  have  right  access  to  contend  with, 
or  control  his  adversaries.  Many  influences  and  gifts  of  the  Spirit 
in  unbelievers  are  so  ordered  as  to  be,  in  respect  of  their  tendency 
and  issue,  of  saving  benefit  to  others.  Such  benefit  is,  no  doubt,  the 
fruit  of  Christ's  purchase  to  those  who  obtain  it :  but  it  does  not  fol- 
low, that  these  gifts  and  influences,  in  themselves  or  as  they  are  in  un- 
believers, who  have  no  saving  benefit  by  them,  are  to  be  considered  as 
the  fruit  of  Christ's  purchase. 

The  elect  of  God,  before  conversion,  are  under  the  curse —children 
of  wrath,  even  as  others  :  so  that  the  common  influences  and  gifts  of 
the  Spirit  in  them  before  conversion,  absolutely  considered,  cannot  be 
reckoned  benefits  of  Christ's  purchase.  For  how  can  they  be  enjoy- 
ing the  benefits  of  his  purchase,  while  they  enjoy  no  fellowship  with 
him  in  God's  favor  and  acceptance?  But  then  all  the  common  influ- 
ences and  gifts  of  the  Spirit  in  them,  with  all  the  conduct  of  "Provi- 
dence towards  them,  are  so  ordered  as  to  have  a  tendency  and  subser- 
vience to  their  conversion  ;  in  which  they  issue  at  the  set  time.  All 
this  subservience  is  indeed  the  purchase  of  Christ.  But  the  elect  do 
not  come  to  the  active  receiving,  using  and  enjoying  of  this  benefit,  till 
their  conversion,  or  actual  believing  in  Christ. 

§  47.  The  seventh  article  asserts  the  gener.al,  free  and  unlimited  of- 
fer of  Christ  and  salvation  through  him  by  the  gospel  unto  sinners  of 
mankind  as  such  ;  and  also,  the  consistency  of  that  oifer  with  the  scrip- 
tural doctrine  of  particular  redemption,  which  is  expressed  in  the  pre- 
ceding articles. 

In  the  first  place,  this  article  represents  the  ground  of  the  offer  and 
call  of  the  gospel,  as  lying  in  three  things :  1.  In  the  intrinsic  suffi- 
ciency of  the  death  of  Christ ;  his  death  being  considered  as  including 
his  whole  surety  righteousness,  the  holiness  of  his  nature,  the  obedience 
of  his  life,  and  his  suffering  unto  death.  Thus,  "  Christ  is  the  end  of 
the  law  for  righteousness  to  every  one  that  believeth  ;"  the  law  hav- 
ing its  end  in  Christ,  as  it  has  in  him  a  full  answer  to  all  its  demands. 
His  blood  is  precious  blood  :  his  righteousness  is  the  righteousness 
of  God.  Rom.  x.  4  ;  iii.  21,  22,  25,  26;  1  Peter  i.  19.  2.  In  the 
common  relation  which  he  bears  to  mankind-sinners  as  such,  in  the 


ALEXANDER   AND   RUFUS.  353 

constitution  of  his  person  as  their  Kinsman-Redeemer,  being  thus  a 
fit  Mediator  between  God  and  man,  one  that  is  "  mighty  to  save,  one 
chosen  outof  the  people  ;"  1  Tim.  ii.  5;  Psalms  Ixxxix.  19  ;  and  also 
in  the  nature  of  his  offices  as  equally  suitable  to  the  need  of  mankind- 
sinners  as  such  :  like  the  office  of  a  physician,  which  bears  the  same 
relation  to  all  diseased  persons,  especially  to  all  that  labor  under  the 
same  disease.  3.  In  the  absolute  promises  and  free  grant  of  justifi- 
cation and  eternal  life  to  mankind  sinners  as  such,  in  the  gospel  ;  de- 
claring, that  the  possession  of  these  blessings  is  to  be  certainly  ob- 
tained in  the  way  of  believing.  "  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he 
gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  on  him  may 
not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life  ;"  John  iii.  16.  "My  Father," 
says  Christ,  speaking  to  unbelievers  as  well  as  believers,  "  giveth  you 
the  true  bread  from  heaven. "=''  And  this  is  the  record,  which  all  the 
hearers  of  the  gospel  are  bound  by  God's  authority  to  believe,  if 
they  would  not  make  him  a  liar  :  "  That  God  hath  given  to  us  eter- 
nal life;  and  that  this  life  is  in  his  Son  ;"  1  John  v.  10,  11.  "This 
is  the  covenant,  which  I  will  make  with  the  house  of  Israel,  saith  the 
Lord ;"  and  which  God  now  makes  with  the  visible  church,  warrant- 
ing each  member  of  it  to  take  hold  of  it  by  faith  for  his  own  salva- 
tion :  "  I  will  put  my  law  in  their  inward  parts,  and  write  it  in  their 
hearts  ;  and  I  will  be  their  God,  and  they  shall  be  my  people ;  and  they 
shall  all  know  me,  from  the  least  to  the  greatest.  For  I  will  forgive 
their  iniquity,  and  I  will  remember  their  sin  no  more."  "I  wiir  sprin- 
kle clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean."  "  A  new  heart 
will  I. give  you."  "and  I  will  put  my  Spirit  v^^ithin  you.''  Jerem. 
xxxi.  33  ;  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25,  26,  27.  God's  free  grant  of  Christ's  right- 
eousness and  salvation,  or  his  absolute  promises,  as  they  are  directed 
to  sinners  of  mankind  indefinitely,  are  to  be  immediately  considered, 
not  as  an  expression  of  God's  purpose,  or  of  what  he  will  do  in  the 
event,  but  as  an  expression  of  his  free  offer  so  to  do  or  perform ;  a 
free  gi-ant  made  to  the  hearers  of  the  gospel,  warranting  any  one  of 
them  all,  or  whosoever  will,  apply  to  themselves  by  faith  Jesus  Christ 
and  the  blessings  promised  in  him.  The  gospel  is  an  extract  from 
the  glorious  original  of  the  new  covenant.  In  this  extract,  the  pro- 
mises bear  a  direction  to  sinners  of  mankind  indefinitely ;  a  blank 
being  left,  where  the  names  of  the  elect  are  recorded  in  the  origi- 
nal. So  that  in  this  extract,  these  promises  are  not  to  be  consider- 
ed as  an  expression  or  declaration  of  God's  purpose  of  saving  any 
person  in  particular ;  but  only  as  that  person  is  determined  to  fill  up 
the  blank  with  his  name,  by  the  hand  of  an  applying  faith.  At  the 
same  time,  God's  authority  is  interposed  in  this  matter,  requiring  all 

*  John  vi.  32,    Non  dicit  Christus,  Pater  mens  hunc  vobis  pauem  dare,  potest, 
vel  daturas  olim  est,  sed  dat  vobis,  id    est,  exhibet  et  ofter  jam  pmesenteiu  ver- 
■um  de  caelo  panem,  modo  hunc  non  eontemnatis.    Mus  cuius  in  locum, 
23 


354  ALEXANDER  AND  EUFUS. 

the  hearers  of  the  gospel  to  fill  up  the  blank  with  their  names,  by 
making  an  application  of  Christ,  with  all  his  redemption  and  salva- 
tion, to  themselves  in  particular.  "  This  is  his  commandment,  that 
we  should  believe  in  the  name  of  his  Son  Jesus  Christ ;  1  John  ii.  23. 
In  the  second  place,  this  article  asserts  the  consistency  of  the  gos- 
pel offer  aaid  call  with  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  particular  redemp- 
tion. Who  the  particular  persons  were,  whom  the  Father  gave  to 
Christ,  stating  them  in  him  as  their  Covenant-Head ;  or  for  whom 
Christ  undertook  to  die  as  their  Surety,  is  among  the  secret  things 
which  belong  to  the  Lord  our  God;  Deut,  xxix.  29.  And  as  per- 
sons are  not  to  inquire  whether  they  be  among  the  elect,  neither  are 
they  to  inquire  whether  they  be  among  them  for  whom,  or  in  whose 
place  Christ  laid  down  his  life,  before  they  venture  to  receive  him, 
and  rest  upon  him,  as  he  is  offered  to  them  in  the  gospel.  The  de- 
clarations of  grace,  about  the  general  claim  or  right  of  access,  such 
as,  "  To  us  a  Child  is  born,  to  us  a  Son  is  given,  and  sent  to  bless 
us/'  belong  to  all  the  hearers  of  the  gospel,  and  are  applicable  to 
each  of  them  before  they  believe,  or  though  they  should  never  believe. 
But  with  regard  to  the  declarations  of  grace  about  an  interest  in 
Christ,  and  in  his  blood,  as  when  it  is  said,  ''  He  hath  borne  our  griefs, 
and  carried  our  sorrows  ;  he  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions, 
and  bruised  for  our  iniquities ;  the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was 
upon  him  ;  with  his  stripes  we  are  healed  ;  the  Lord  hath  laid  on  him 
the  iniquities  of  us  all ;  he  is  the  Lord  our  righteousness ;  the  pro- 
pitiation for  our  sins,  our  peace  :"  though  these  and  the  hke  declar- 
ations are  to  be  set  forth  in  the  dispensation  of  the  gospel,  that  they 
may  be  applied  by  faith,  upon  the  ground  of  the  general  right  of  ac- 
cess ;  yet  they  never  can  be  applied  to  any  person  in  a  state  of  unbe- 
lief. These  declarations  are  always  true  in  the  mouth  of  faith ;  but 
never  in  the  mouth  of  unbelief;  which  indeed  cannot  speak  any  truth 
oncerning  Christ.  The  truth  about  Christ  and  his  blood,  which  jus- 
tifying faith  immediately  terminates  on,  is  a  matter  of  present  truth. 
In  the  case  of  justification.  Faith  does  not  look  back  to  Divine  pur- 
poses :  it  has  no  consideration  of  what  may  have  formerly  been  true 
about  the  person  believing,  in  any  counsels  of  the  Father  and  the  Son 
concerning  him.  But  it  looks  straight  out  to  Christ  as  revealed  in 
the  word,  to  his  blood  and  righteousness  as  there  set  forth  ;  and,  on 
the  ground  of  that  exhibition,  makes  the  person  apply  all  to  himself. 
But  for  whom  it  was  particularly  that  Christ  offered  up  the  atone- 
ment, and  for  whom  the  Lord  received  it  at  his  hand,  is  a  matter  no 
way  considered  in  this  case  :  God  and  Christ  are  considered  as  pre- 
sently offering  this  atonement  in  the  word  of  grace,  to  be  received  by 
faith.  Upon  this  ground,  faith  receives  it,  appropriates  it,  and  rests 
upon  it,  as  an  atonement  for  all  the  guilt  of  the  person  unto  his 
eternal  salvation.  As  faith  could  have  no  footing  in  the  scheme  of 
universal  redemption,  which  admits  of  no  certain  connection  between 


ALEXANDER  AND  EUFUS.  355 

the  death  of  Christ  and  salvation  ;  so  it  has  no  immediate  regard  to 
the  particularity  of  redemption,  as  belonging  at  all  to  its  ground  and 
warrant ;  or  yet  as  any  bar  in  its  way.  But,  according  to  the  doc- 
trine of  particular  redemption,  faith  finds  an  inseparable  connection 
between  the  death  of  Christ  and  salvation  :  and  as  faith  has  an  iji- 
mediate  access  to  his  death,  that  is,  to  his  whole  surety  righteousness 
in  the  word  of  grace ;  so  it  takes  hold  of  his  righteousness,  which 
brings  along  with  it  the  whole  chain  of  saving  blessings  promised  in 
the  new  covenant. 


DIALOGUE  IV. 

Public  coyenanting;,  a  duty  of  the  churcli  under  the  New  Testament  dispensa- 
tion—Religious covenants  which  have  been  entered  into  by  the  church, 
binding  on  posterity— Objections  against  the  Sole  mn  League  and  Covenant, 
answered— The  renovation  of  that  Covenant  by  a  bond,  adapted  to  the  pres- 
ent circumstances  of  the  church,  vindicated — The  various  uses  of  public  cov- 
enanting—The reference  in  the  bond  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  to  the  con- 
fession of  sins  prefixed  to  it,  vindicated— An  objection,  on  account  of  things 
deemed  obscure  and  doubtful  in  the  bond  of  the  Associate  Presbytery,  an- 
swered—Of their  act  about  public  covenanting,  considered  as  a  term  of  com- 
munion—Of the  season  of  public  covenanting— Of  the  recognizing  of  our 
former  covenant  engagements  in  our  public  covenanting- Of  the  evangelical 
manner  of  covenanting. 

As  in  the  course  of  the  former  conversations  between  Alexander 
and  Rufus  the  national  covenant  of  Scotland  and  the  Solemn  League 
of  the  three  Kingdoms  had  been  frequently  mentioned,  Alexander 
was  led  to  think,  that  the  consequences  of  what  our  ancestors  did  in 
entering  into  these  covenants,  (if  their  doing  so  was  agreeable  to  the 
word  and  appointment  of  the  Lord  Christ,)  must  be  unspeakably 
more  important  than  they  are  believed  to  be  by  the  generality  of  the 
present  age.  In  that  case,  the  people  of  these  nations,  must  be  per- 
petually bound  to  be  faithful  members  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  "and 
to  hold  the  true  religion,  not  only  from  the  authority  of  the  scrip- 
tures, but  also  in  regard  of  the  oath  of  God.  The  sin  of  these  na- 
tions, in  their  public  apostacy  from  the  reformation  which  they  had 
sworn  to  maintain,  and  in  denying  the  obhgation  of  these  covenants, 
is  hardly  paralleled  by  the  national  sin  of  any  other  people  under 
heaven,  excepting  that  of  the  Jews,  in  crucifying  the  Lord  of  glory. 
Even  the  Presbyterian  Churches  in  America,  so  far  as  they  are  pecu- 


356  ALEXANDEE  AND  EUFUS. 

liarly  connected  with  the  Reformed  Church  of  Scotland,  and  so  far 
as  they  have  publicly  declined,  and  obstinately  continue  their  depar- 
ture from  the  reformation  engaged  to  in  these  covenants,  cannot  be 
free  from  a  participation  in  that  public  guilt.  Nay,  the  prevailing 
contempt  of  these  covenants,  cannot  fail  to  have  a  baleful  influence 
upon  the  Reformed  Churches  in  general ;  among  which  the  Church 
of  Scotland  holds  a  principal  rank.  Such  a  view  of  this  matter,  is 
apt  to  fill  a  serious  mind  with  alarming  apprehensions;  God  having 
threatened  to  send  a  sword  to  avenge  the  quarrel  of  his  covenant. 
On  the  other  hand,  he  knew,  that  many  pious  and  learned  men  of  the 
present  day,  consider  public  covenanting  as  a  peculiarity  of  the  Old 
Testament  dispensation,  or  merely  as  a  political  measure,  that  may 
be  sometimes  expedient.  They  think,  that  the  forms  of  religious 
worship  and  of  church  government,  for  the  maintenance  of  which,  our 
forefathers  entered  into  these  covenants,  were  not  of  much  impor- 
tance. Many  are  strongly  prejudiced,  particularly  against  the  so- 
lemn league,  because  the  Parliament  of  England  entered  into  it  in 
the  time  of  a  civil  war ;  when,  it  is  supposed,  they  were  chargeable 
with  rebellion  against  the  lawful  sovereign ;  though  it  is  very  evi- 
dent, that  the  civil  war,  at  that  time,  between  Charles  the  First  and 
the  parliament,  was,  on  his  side,  for  the  support  of  arbitrary  govern- 
ment, and  for  the  retaining  of  superstition — and,  on  the  side  of  the 
Parliament,  for  civil  liberty,  and  for  the  reformation  of  religion.  Nor 
could  the  civil  war,  on  any  supposition,  justly  hinder  the  people  of 
England  and  Scotland  from  entering  into  a  solemn  covenant  with 
God,  for  religion  and  reformation;  or  that  covenant,  when  it  was 
entered  into  by  the  generality  of  all  ranks,  from  being  the  lawful 
deed  of  these  nations,  and  consequently,  obligatory  upon  them. 

Alexander  was  considering  these  things,  when  Rufus  called  at  his 
house,  and  the  following  conversation  took  place  : 

Alex.  I  have  been  thinking,  Rufus,  on  public  covenanting  ;  a 
subject  much  insisted  on  by  the  Associate  Presbytery. 

RuF.  They  indeed  endeavored  to  revive  the  practice  of  public 
covenanting  ;  and  therefore,  along  with  their  act  concerning  the 
doctrine  of  grace,  they  published  an  act  for  renewing  the  national 
covenant  of  Scotland,  and  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant  of  the 
three  Kingdoms,  in  a  manner  agreeable  to  their  situation  and  circum- 
stances. 

Alex.  It  is  true,  public  covenanting  was  practised  under  the  Old 
Testament  dispensation  ;  but  how  can  it  be  shown  to  be  a  duty  un- 
der the  New  Testament  ? 

§  48.  RuF.  If  public  and  social  covenanting  was  the  duty  of  God's 
church,  under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation,  it  must  be  so  still ; 
unless  it  was  among  the  usages  that  were  laid  aside  at  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  New  Testament  dispensation.  But  we  have  no  good 
reason  to  consider  it  in  that  light :  for  it  is  no  other,  as  to  the  mat- 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  357 

ter  of  it,  than  the  duty  required  in  the  first  commandment,  of  ackowl- 
edging  the  only  true  God  to  be  our  God,  and  our  obligation  to  wor- 
ship and  glorify  him  accordingly.  As  to  the  form  of  an  oath,  the 
use  of  it,  (in  cases  of  weight  and  importance,  where  it  is  a  proper 
means  of  maintaining  and  promoting  truth,)  is  required  in  the  third 
commandment.  And  our  Larger  Catechism  justly  inserts  vowing  to 
the  Lord,  among  the  ordinances  which  the  second  commandment  re- 
quires us  to  receive  and  observe.  There  are  also  various  prophecies 
of  the  Old  Testament,  which  foreshew,  that  public  and  social  cove- 
nanting was  to  be  attended  to  and  practised,  as  a  duty  under  the 
new  dispensation.  It  was  promised,  that  "  five  cities  in  the  land  of 
Egypt,"  a  remnant  not  of  the  ancient  Israelites,  but  of  the  Egyptians, 
''  shall  swear  to  the  Lord  of  hosts  ;"  shall  swear  not  only  by  him, 
but  to  him  ;  and  that  they  shall  vow  a  vow  unto  the  Lord,  and  per- 
form it :  Isaiah  xix.  18,  21.  Again,  it  is  promised,  that  the  time  of 
the  more  plentiful  effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  is,  under  the  New 
Testament  dispensation,  should  be  a  time  of  public  covenanting,  as  in 
these  words  :  "  I  will  pour  water  on  him  that  is  thirsty,  and  floods 
upon  the  dry  ground."  "  One  shall  say,  I  am  the  Lord's;  and  an- 
other shall  call  himself  by  the  name  of  Jacob  ;  and  another  shall  sul> 
scribe  with  his  hand  unto  the  Lord,  and  surname  himself  by  the  name 
of  Israel,"  Isaiah  xliv.  3,  4,  5.  The  several  clauses  of  this  verse 
are  not  to  be  understood  of  different  professions  made  by  different 
parties,  but  as  representing  the  explicit  and  solemn  manner  in  which 
the  same  profession  was  to  be  made  by  the  members  of  the  church, 
severally  as  individuals,  and  jointly  as  one  body,  one  church  :  for 
these  clauses  may  be  rendered,  "  One  shall  say — and  he  shall  call  him- 
self— and  he  shall  subscribe."  The  Seceders  often  produce  these  and 
other  texts  out  of  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament,  respecting 
New  Testament  times,  as  proofs  of  the  duty  of  public  covenanting. 
And  that  they  do  so  justly,  is  very  much  confirmed  by  the  little  suc- 
cess of  the  attempts  which  have  been  made  to  explain  away  these 
texts  from  having  any  reference  to  public  covenanting  ;  that  is,  to  ex- 
plain them  away  from  the  native  and  literal  sense  of  the  words  ;  from 
which  we  are  not  to  depart  without  necessity.  Nor  can  the  joint, 
unanimous  and  formal  deed  of  the  churches  of  Macedonia,  in  giving 
their  own  selves  to  the  Lord,  2  Corinth,  viii.  5,  be  well  understood 
of  any  thing  else,  than  such  covenanting  as  was  practised  by  the 
church  of  God,  under  the  Old  Testament.  This  is  indeed  a  most 
reasonable  service.  Jesus  Christ  is  the  King  whom .  God  hath  set  on 
his  holy  hill  of  Zion ;  and  his  people,  the  citizens  of  Zion,  are  his 
willing  subjects ;  and  ought  not  such  to  swear  allegiance  to  their 
King ;  and,  at  a  time  of  great  and  general  defection,  to  give  the 
most  solemn  and  public  assurances  of  their  adherence  to  all  the  inter- 
ests of  his  Kingdom  ?  They  are  soldiers  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and  should 
they  not  swear  to  be  faithful  to  their  Divine  Commander  ?     Tbey  are 


358  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

witnesses  for  him  ;  and  ought  not  the  testimony  they  give  to  his  des- 
pised truths,  to  be  confirmed  by  their  oath?  ''As  the  Lord,'' says 
Mr.  Willison,  in  the  preface  of  his  Afflicted  Man's  Companion,  ''did 
signally  countenance  the  practice  of  our  reformers  in  entering  into 
solemn  and  national  covenants  with  God,  by  the  pouring  out  of  his 
Spirit  from  on  high  ;  so  this  practice  is  sufficiently  warranted,  both  by 
the  light  of  nature^  and  by  the  word  of  God  in  the  Old  and  New 
Testament." 

Alex.  Mr.  Willison  calls  the  covenanting  of  the  reformers,  na- 
tional covenanting,  as  if  it  belonged  to  the  civil  state.  But  you  re- 
present it  as  a  religious  exercise,  competent  even  to  a  few  in  their  re- 
ligious capacity  only. 

RuF.  It  is  true,  that  in  public  covenanting,  as  much  as  in  partak- 
ing of  the  Lord's  supper,  persons  are  considered  as  church  members. 
Yet  they  may  bear  other  characters,  as  men,  and  as  members  of  civil 
society  ;  and  in  their  covenanting,  may  be  engaged  to  the  duties  be- 
longing to  these  characters.  So  the  covenanters,  in  Nehemiah's  time, 
are  called  princes  as  well  as  priests  and  Levites.  So  the  titles  pre- 
fixed to  the  Solemn  League,  noblemen,  barons,  burgesses,  citizens,  are 
no  more  inconsistent  with  the  religious  and  spiritual  nature  of  cove- 
nanting, than  the  prefixing  of  their  proper  names,  John,  James,  Wil- 
liam, and  the  like,  would  have  been.  In  public  covenanting,  persons 
devoted  all  they  are  and  have,  and,  among  other  things,  all  their  civil 
relations,  to  the  Lord,  and  engage  to  serve  him  in  the  discharge  of 
the  duties  belonging  to  these  relations :  and  if  the  Covenanters  be 
sufficient,  in  respect  of  number  and  rank,  to  represent  the  whole  na- 
tion, they,  in  this  transaction,  devote  the  nation  to  the  Lord,  declar- 
ing, that  the  people  of  that  nation  solemnly  consent  to  be  faithful 
members  of  his  church,  and  to  adhere  as  long  as  their  nation  shall 
subsist,  to  all  the  reformation  which  they  have  attained.  Every  peo- 
ple, to  whom  the  word  of  God  comes,  are  under  a  moral  obligation 
to  be  members  of  his  church ;  and  public  covenanting  is  a  solemn 
ckn  owledgment  of  the  extent  and  perpetuity  of  that  obligation.  This 
covenanting,  also  lays  them  under  a  secondary  obligation  to  the  same 
duty ;  the  disregard  or  violation  of  which,  constitute  that  perfidy  or' 
spiritual  adultery,  with  which  the  Lord  so  often  charges  his  people 
Israel  under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation.  Further,  if  there  may 
be  a  national  church,  there  may  be  national  covenanting,  under  the 
New  Testament  dispensation.  But  it  is  evident,  that  the  whole  or 
the  generality  of  the  people  that  compose  any  nation,  may  become 
church  members ;  in  which  case,  there  would  be  a  national  church. 
Such  an  event  is  meant,  when  it  is  said,  The  kingdoms  of  this  world 
are  become  the  kingdoms  of  our  Lord  and  of  his  Christ :  Revel,  xi. 
15.  That  is,  they  now  adhered  to  Christ,  as  they  had  done  to  anti- 
christ, in  their  collective  capacity,  as  nations.  This  expression,  "  The 
kingdoms  are  become  the  Lord's,''  is  to  be  understood,  not  of  their 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  359 

becoming  Ms  .by  Saving  Faith  ;  but  of  their  becoming  his  by  a  pub- 
lic profession  of  the  Faith.  As  the  church  under  the  Old  Testament 
dispensation  made  this  profession  in  the  way  of  solemn  covenanting, 
we  cannot  suppose,  that  under  the  New  Testament,  when  her  relation 
to  the  Lord,  and  the  privileges  attending  that  relation,  are  set  in  a 
clearer  light,  she  is  less  bound  to  acknowledge  it  in  the  same  public 
and  solemn  manner.  In  the  book  of  Jeremiah,  God,  having  directed 
his  people  to  swear,  "  The  Lord  liveth  in  truth,  in  judgment  and  in 
righteousness,"  adds,  a  prophecy,  that  "  the  nations  should  bless  them- 
selves in  him;  and  that  in  him  they  should  glory."  Jerem.  iv.  2. 
The  connection  of  these  words,  leads  us  to  understand  them  as  mean- 
ing, that  these  nations  should  do  so  in  the  way  of  swearing  to  the 
Lord. 

Alex.  There  is  no  account  of  a  national  church  of  Christ  in  the 
time  of  the  apostles, 

RuF.  It  is  no  wonder,  that  v>^e  do  not  find  a  National  Church  ex- 
pressly mentioned  in  the  history  of  the  New  Testament,  while  there 
was  not,  as  yet,  any  whole  nation  brought  to  the  profession  of  the 
faith.  What  is  equivalent,  however,  is  found  in  the  New  Testament. 
For  when  we  speak  of  a  National  Church,  all  that  we  mean  is,  that 
several  churches  or  congregations,  of  such  extent  as  comprehends  the 
whole  or  the  generality  of  a  nation,  are  united  under  one  ecclesiasti- 
cal judicatory,  and  are  properly  termed  one  particular  church  ;  the 
church  of  that  place  or  nation.  So  there  were  several  churches  in 
Corinth,  1  Corinth.  xi\^.  34,which  composed  one  church  there  ;  1  Cor- 
inth, i.  2.  The  church  which  Paul  persecuted,  was  one  church  ; 
Acts  viii.  3  ;  and  yet  comprehend  many  churches  in  Judea ;  which 
had  rest  immediately  upon  his  conversion;  Acts  ix:  31.  As  the 
whole  or  the  generality  of  a  nation,  professing  the  christian  faith, 
constitute  a  national  church ;  so  the  public  covenanting  of  such  a 
church  may  be  called  national  covenanting.  Among  a  people  who 
have  come  uncler  such  solemn  covenant  engagements,  though  the 
generality  fall  away  from  their  adherence  to  them ;  there  may  be  a 
warrantable  renewing  of  them  by  a  small  part  of  the  nation ;  which 
is  a  real,  though  not  a  national,  renewing  of  them.  Thus,  the  na- 
tional covenant  of  Israel  was  renewed  by  Judah,  a  part  of  that  na- 
tion. A  few  may  warrantably  essay  this  duty  ;  it  was  foretold,  that 
five  cities,  that  is,  a  few  of  the  many  cities  of  Egypt,  should  swear  to 
the  Lord  of  hosts. 

§  49.  Alex.  The  Seceders  hold,  that  the  national  covenant  of 
Scotland,  which  was  sworn  and  subscribed  by  the  people  there  in  the 
year  1581,  and  several  times  afterwards  ;  and  the  Solemn  League  and 
Covenant  of  the  three  kingdoms,  taken  and  subscribed  in  the  year 
1643,  are  binding  on  posterity. 

RuF.  And  why  should  we  not  allow,  that  a  particular  church,  hav- 
ing entered  into  such  a  covenant  of  duty,  is,  ever  afterwards,  under 


360  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

the  obligation  of  it;  since  the  unchangeable  God  is  the  Great  Party, 
to  whom  the  oath  is  sworn ;  since  the  duties  engaged  to,  are,  in  their 
own  nature,  moral  and  perpetually  binding ;  and  since  the  society, 
continuing  in  the  succession  of  its  members,  is  still  the  same  which 
entered  into  the  engagement  ?  Why  should  it  be  reckoned  any  pe- 
culiarity of  the  Israelites,  that  the  covenant  which  they  swore  to  God, 
in  the  time  of  Moses,  was  binding  on  their  posterity ;  so  that  in  Jere- 
miah's time,  they  were  spoken  of  as  the  same  people,  who,  as  a  col- 
lective body,  had  said  Of  old  time,  at  Horeb,  and  in  the  plains  of 
Moab,  I  will  not  transgress  ?  Jer.  ii.  20.  Why  should  we  not  allow,that 
the  case  is  still  the  same  under  the  New  Testament  dispensation  ;  and 
that  a  covenant  of  duty,  such  as  the  Solemn  League,  having  been 
sworn  to  God  by  a  particular  church,  has  a  peculiar  and  perpetual  ob- 
ligation on  that  church  ? 

That  this  cannot  well  be  denied,  appears  from  the  unity  of  the 
church  of  Christ,  under  the  old  and  new  dispensations.  The  con- 
verted Gentiles  did  not  form  a  new  church ;  but,  according  to  what 
is  declared  in  the  eleventh  chapter  of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans,  were 
ingrafted  into  the  stock  of  the  Jewish  Church,  The  church  of  God 
still  continued  the  same  body  ;  though  the  Gentiles  were  added  to  it, 
upon  the  breaking  down  of  the  middle  wall  of  partition.  Hence,  it 
may  be  justly  concluded,  that  a  particular  church  under  the  New 
Testament,  continuing  the  same  in  the  succession  of  her  members,  is 
as  much  under  a  secondary  obligation,  as  Israel  was  of  old,  from  her 
covenant  engagements,  to  the  same  things  which  she  is  bound  to  by 
the  primary  obligation  of  the  moral  law.  So  that  we  may  reason  to 
this  purpose  :  the  public  covenanting,  which  recognises  the  relation 
between  God  and  his  people ;  and  also  the  duties  of  that  relation,  is 
as  extensive  in  its  obligation  now,  under  the  New  Testament,  as  it 
was  when  Israel  covenanted  at  Horeb,  and  in  the  plains  of  Moab. 
But  the  obligation  of  Israel's  covenanting  then  extended  not  only  to 
the  immediate  covenanters,  but  to  their  posterity  :  and  therefore,  the 
obligation  of  the  church's  covenanting  under  the  New  Testament 
also  extends  to  posterity,  or  to  church  members  in  successive  gen- 
erations. 

Alex.  According  to  your  opinion,  then,  the  church  is  still  under 
the  obligation  of  the  covenants  that  were  entered  into  by  Israel  at 
Mount  Sinai,  and  in  the  plains  of  Moab  ;  under  the  obligation  of  the 
covenants  that  were  entered  into  in  the  reigns  of  Asa  and  Josiah,  in 
the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  ;  and  also,  under  the  obligation  of 
all  the  covenants  that  have  been  taken  in  the  church,  since  the  ascen- 
sion of  Christ.  How  absurd  is  it  to  suppose,  that  we  are  now  under 
the  obligation  which  the  Jews  came  under  to  observe  the  ceremonial 
and  judicial  laws  ?  Besides,  who  can  suppose,  that  every  plain 
christian  is  chargeable  with  covenant  violation,  for  not  fulfill- 
ing engagements  which  he  may  never  have  had  an  opportunity  of 
knowing  ? 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  361 

RuF.  I  may  observe,  in  the  first  place,  that  there  never  can  be 
any  violation  of  the  secondary  obligation  of  these  covenants,  while 
there  is  no  violation  of  the  primary  obligation  of  the  Divine  law  ; 
because  these  covenants  bind  us  to  nothing  to  which  we  are  not  previ- 
ously bound  by  the  Divine  law ;  for  the  matter  engaged  to  in  public 
covenantini:  is  never,  like  the  matter  of  the  ceremonial  vows  treated 
of  in  the  thirtieth  chapter  of  Numbers,  something  of  an  indifferent 
nature;  but  always  something  that  belongs  to  moral  duty.  Hence, 
it  is  a  vain  prejudice  against  the  obligation  of  such  covenants,  that 
christians  are  embarrassed  by  the  multiplicity  of  them  ;  and  that  they 
would  include  the  obligation  of  the  Jewish  covenants  to  observe  the 
ceremonial  and  judicial  laws.  For  the  public  covenants  which  have 
been  formerly  entered  into  by  the  church  of  God,  bind  us  to  nothing 
but  moral  duty,  and  to  the  practice  of  that  duty,  according  to  what 
the  moral  law  requires  in  our  own  situation  and  circumstances  ;  not 
according  to  what  was  peculiar  to  those  of  the  church  when  she  en- 
tered into  such  covenants. 

^Ii]  the  next  place,  we  ought  to  have  the  greatest  regard  to  the 
solemn  covenant  engagements  as  such,  that  were  formerly  entered 
into,  by  the  particular  church  of  which  we  are  members ;  or  from 
which  the  ecclesiastical  body  to  wliich  we  belong  have  sprung.  The 
influence  of  this  derivation  is,  no  doubt,  diminished  :  as  it  is  more 
remote  or  less  known.  But  the  evils  of  a  particular  church  are  al- 
ways aggravated  by  their  inconsistency  with  her  former  covenant 
engagements. 

In  the  third  place,  w^e  ought  to  have  more  regard  to  the  former 
covenant  engagements  of  a  particulijr  church,  the  more  lately  they 
have  been  entered  into,  and  the  more  that  the  matter  of  them  relates 
to  the  present  state  of  the  church.  Just  as  the  treaty  in  1782,  ac- 
knowledging the  independence  of  the  American  States,  ought  to  be 
more  regarded  by  England,  than  treaties  that  were  made  in  the  reign 
of  Alfred  or  that  of  Canute.  Thus,  there  is  a  special  regard  which 
a  person  owes  to  the  recognition  of  his  covenant  relation  to  God, 
made  by  his  immediate  parents,  above  what  he  owes  to  the  recogni- 
tion of  the  same  thing,  which  may  have  been  made  by  his  more  re- 
mote progenitors.  Thus,  we  have  a  more  special  call  to  recognise 
the  obhgation  of  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant,  than  that  of  more 
ancient  covenants  :  First,  because  the  solemn  league  includes  former 
covenant  engagements,  against  Heathenism,  Judaism,  Popery,  Arian- 
ism,  and  the  like.  Second,  because  the  evils  which,  occasioned  it, 
and  against  which  it  is  more  especially  levelled,  are  still  prevailing ; 
such  as  the  prelacy,  the  independency  in  the  government  of  the 
church ;  and  the  superstitious  usages  in  religious  worship,  abjured 
in  that  covenant. 

In  the  fourth  place,  our  regard  to  the  obligation  of  the  former 
covenant  engagements  of  the  church,  ought  to  be  such  as  is  adapted 


362  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

to  answer  the  ends  of  such  obligation.  The  ends  for  which  the  con- 
tinuing obligation  of  covenant  engagements  is  to  be  maintained,  with 
regard  to  posterity,  are  much  the  same  with  the  ends  for  which  that 
obligation  is  to  be  maintained,  with  regard  to  the  immediate  cove- 
nanters. These  ends  are,  That  persons  may  still  find  themselves 
under  an  obligation  additional,  though  subordiaate,  to  that  of  the 
Divine  law;  the  obligation  of  an  oath,  to  hold  fast  all  the  scriptural 
reformation  which  the  church  has  attained ;  that  they  may  be  excited 
to  recoguise  Jehovah  as  their  covenanted  God  in  Christ ;  that  the 
existing  members  of  the  church  may  be  led  to  consider  themselves  as 
one  body  with  the  church  of  old,  and  as  peculiarly  interested  in  her 
ancient  deliverances  -,  they  being,  on  this  account,  directed  in  the 
Psalms  to  celebrate  the  deliverances  which  the  Lord  wrought  in  the 
days  of  their  fathers,  as  matters  of  their  own  experience  :  Psal.  Ixvi. 
6,  "  They  went  through  the  flood  on  foot;  there  did  we  rejoice  in 
him;"  and,  in  fine,  that  they  may  be  deterred  from  apostacy  ;  an 
end  for  which  Moses  exhorted  Israel  to  remember  the  obligation  of 
the  covenant  which  they  had  entered  into  at  Horeb.  Now,  the 
nearer  that  the  date  of  the  former  covenants  of  the  church  is  to  our 
own  time,  affording  us  an  opportunity  of  being  well  acquainted  with 
the  occasions  and  consequences  of  them  ;  and  the  more  that  the  mat- 
ter of  these  covenants  refers  to  particular  evils  that  stiU  prevail,  and 
to  particular  duties  still  incumbent  on  us  ;  the  more  is  a  serious  and 
steady  regard  to  the  obligation  of  such  covenants  adapted  to  the  at- 
tainment of  such  important  ends.  The  truth  is,  a  particular  church 
is  degenerating,  so  far  as  she  declines  from  a  due  legaid  to  her  own 
former  professions  and  engagements,  while  there  is  nothing  found  in 
them  but  what   is  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God. 

§  50.  Alex.  Many  suppose,  that  the  English  Parliament  consid- 
ered their  entei'ing  into  the  Solemn  League,  as  only  a  political  mea- 
sure, which  was  then  necessary  for  supporting  their  cause  against 
King  Charles  the  First. 

RuF.  Whatever  motives  induced  some  of  those  in  civil  authority 
to  promote  the  taking  of  this  covenant,  it  is  evident,  that  the  peo- 
ple's entering  into  it  was  an  act  of  religious  worship.  This  appears 
from  the  Divine  warrant,  (proved  by  Mr.  ^illison  and  others,)  for 
public  covenanting  as  an  ordinance  of  religious  worship  ;  -from  the 
matter  of  the  solemn  league,  as  it  was  a  profession  of  faith  in  the 
Lord  Jesus,  and  of  allegiance  to  him  ;  an  engagement  to  endeavor 
the  reformation  of  religion,  and  a  solemn  vow,  v/hereby  the  swearers 
bound  themselves  and  their  posterity  to  be  the  Lord's  ; — from  the  im- 
mediate end  of  it  ;  which  was  next  to  the  glory  of  God,  the  advance- 
ment of  the  spiritual  kingdom  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ; — and,  last, 
from  this  fact  that  our  ancestors  considered  it  as  belonging  to  the  in- 
stituted worship  of  God ;  as  appears  from  their  sermons  and  other 
writings  concerning  it,  and  from  their  administration  of  it  on  the 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  363 

Lord's  day,  by  the  ministers  of  the  gospel,  attended  with  preaching, 
prayer  and  fasting. 

Alex.  Was  not  this  covenant  taken  by  the  people  according  to 
an  act  of  the  English  Parliament  ? 

RuF.  It  was,  indeed,  taken  in  consequence  of  an  act  of  parlia- 
ment ;  but  this  will  no  more  make  the  people's  entering  into  it  a  po- 
litical affair,  than  the  parliament's  appointment  of  the  divines  to 
meet  at  Westminster,  made  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms, 
agreed  upon  by  these  divines,  mere  political  affairs.  The  patriotic 
members  of  that  parliament,  were  naturally  led  to  appoint  the  taking 
of  the  solemn  league  and  covenant,  as  a  measure  peculiarly  suitable 
to  the  afflicted  state  of  the  nation  at  that  time.  But  any  impropri- 
ety, which  may  be  supposed  to  have  been  in  their  act  concerning  this 
covenant,  would  no  more  alter  its  nature  or  obligation,  than  their 
appointment  of  the  Lord's  supper,  to  be  administered  in  St.  Paul's 
Church  on  a  certain  Sabbath,  would  have  altered  the  nature  or  use 
of  that  ordinance. 

Alex.  Was  not  the  taking  of  the  national  covenant  of  Scotland, 
and  of  the  solemn  league,  enjoined  under  civil  penalties  ? 

RuF.  I  remember,  that  the  supplication  of  the  Assembly  in  the 
year  1639,  requesting  the  council  and  parliament  to  enjoin  the  nation- 
al covenant  to  be  taken  by  all  his  Majesty's  subjects,  of  what  rank  or 
quality  soever,  under  all  civil  pains,  was  granted.  Bui  Mr.  Wil- 
son, in  his  Defence  of  Reformation  Principles,'^  says,  that  he  heard 
it  affirmed  by  such  as  are  well  acquainted  with  the  Scots  law,  that 
when  a  parKamentary  statute,  speaks  of  all  civil  pains,  without  spe- 
cifying a  particular  penalty,  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  is,  that  the 
judge  is  at  liberty,  in  such  a  case,  to  proportion  the  punishment  to  the 
nature  of  the  crime,  and  to  the  quality  of  the  offender  ;  and  therefore 
when  the  covenant  was  enjoined  under  all  civil  pains,  no  moi'e  was 
intended,  than  that  the  refuser  should  not  be  admitted  ty  any  public 
office  or  trust.  Accordingly  in  the  act  of  the  parliament  in  1640, 
ratifying  the  covenant,  after  the  expression  all  civil  pains,  it  is  sub- 
joined, ''  x\nd  alsO;  the  parliament  ordains,  that  the  covenant  be  pub- 
licly read  and  sworn  by  the  whole  members  of  parliament,  claiming 
voice  therein  ;  and  that  the  refusers  to  subscribe  and  swear  the  same, 
shall  have  no  place  or  voice  in  the  parliament. "f  Nor  does  there  ap- 
pear to  be  any  other  disadvantage  to  which  the  refusers  of  the  solemn 
league  and  covenant  were  subjected  by  the  English  parliament.  In 
our  times,  we  are  apt  to  think,  that  this  was  too  much  -,•  but  we  ought 

*  Pages  298,  299. 

t  Here,  as  Mr.  Poston  observes,  in  his  Inqniry  into  the  Obligation  of  Cov- 
enants on  Posterity,  page  lOi,  the  formidable  expression,  "  all  civil  pains,"  sinks 
into  the  recusant's  having  no  place  nor  voice  in  parliament.  Not  a  word  of 
fines,  confiscations  or  imprisonment. 


364  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

to  consider,  what  was  certainly  fact,  that  scarcely  any,  at  that  time, 
refused  to  subscribe  these  covenants,  but  such  as  were  determined  ene- 
mies to  the  cause  of  civil  liberty  ;  and  that  therefore,  it  would  have 
then  been  inconsistent  with  an  honest  and  faithful  adherence  to  that  cause, 
to  admit  such  to  any  oifice  of  trust  or  power.  After  all,  we  have  no 
instance  of  any  who  were  imprisoned,  banished,  or  even  fined,  for  sim- 
ply refusing  the  covenants.  But  whatever  may  be  said  of  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  civil  authority  in  this  matter,  it  remains  a  certain  truth, 
that  the  taking  of  the  national  covenant  by  the  members  of  the  parlia- 
ment, and  by  the  generality  of  the  people  of  Scotland,  was  a  solemn 
deed,  which  laid  the  nation  under  an  obligation,  which  no  human  pow- 
er or  authority  can  ever  annul.  Nor  is  the  obligation  less  permanent 
which  arose  from  the  taking  of  the  solemn  league  and  covenant. 

§  51.  Alex.  It  is  acknowledged  on  all  hands,  and  by  the  Seceders 
themselves,  that  the  national  covenant  of  Scotland,  and  the  solemn 
league  and  covenant  of  the  three  nations,  in  the  terms  wherein  they 
were  first  sworn,  are  not  suitable  to  the  present  state  of  these  nations, 
on  account  of  the  various  revolutions  which  have  taken  place  there. 
Accordingly,  the  Associate  Presbytery,  about  eight  or  nine  years  af- 
ter its  erection,  new-moulded  these  covenants  into  what  they  called  a 
bond,  adapted  to  their  own  circumstances,  condensing  the  matter  of 
their  former  covenant  in  some  things,  and  enlarging  it  in  others. 

RuF.  Though  it  is  granted,  that  the  circumstances  of  the  church 
of  Christ  in  Britain  and  Ireland,  are  different  from  what  they  were 
when  these  covenants  were  first  sworn,  this  will  not  appear  to  mili- 
tate against  the  continuing  obligation  of  them  on  the  people  there  ; 
when  we  consider  that  the  duties  engaged  to  in  these  covenants,  are 
no  other  than  those  required  in  the  law  of  God  :  and  that,  as  his  law 
does  not  bind  men  to  any  other  practice  of  these  duties,  than  that 
which  their  present  circumstances  admit  and  give  occasion  for  ;  so, 
neither  do  these  covenants  bind  to  any  other.  In  this  sense,  the  faith- 
ful confess(?fs  and  martyrs,  in  the  reign  of  Charles  the  Second,  when 
their  situation  was  greatly  altered  from  what  it  had  been  in  the  cove- 
nanting period,  held  these  covenants  to  be  as  obligatory  on  Scotland, 
as  they  had  been  in  the  day  on  which  they  were  sworn. 

In  the  same  sense,  the  Associate  Presbytery,  in  their  bond,  reog- 
nised  the  continuing  obligation  of  these  covenants,  specifying  a  varie- 
ty of  the  truths  and  ordinances  of  God,  as  belonging  to  that  refor- 
mation, to  which  they  were  bound  in  their  present  circumstances,  not 
only  by  the  primary  obligation  of  the  Divine  law,  but  also,  by  the  su- 
peradded tie  of  these  covenants.  Hence  it  appears,  that  the  bond  in 
which  the  Associate  Presbytery  professed  to  renew  these  covenants, 
was  according  to  the  continuing  obligation  of  them.  It  was  also  ac- 
cording to  the  examples  recorded  in  scripture,  of  Israel's  renewing 
their  covenant  with  the  Lord.  So,  in  the  time  of  Asa,  the  covenant 
engagement  which  the  people  entered  into,  was  expressly  pointed 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  365 

against  idolati-y ;  in  the  time  of  Ezra,  against  the  unlawful  marriages 
of  the  Israelites  with  the  people  of  the  land  ;  and,  in  the  time  of  Ne- 
hemiah,  against  buying  on  the  Sabbath  the  wares  or  victuals  which 
the  people  offered  to  sell  on  that  holy  day,  and  against  the  rigorous 
exaction  of  debts.  Yet  their  covenanting  in  these  instances  was  only 
a  renovation  of  the  covenant  which  Israel  had  entered  into  in  the 
time  of  Moses.  I  may  add,  that  the  Associate  Presbytery's  manner 
of  renewing  these  covenants,  was  according  to  the  example  of  the 
church  of  Scotland  in  her  reforming  times.  In  this  manner,  the  refor- 
mers of  Scotland,  in  the  year  1638,  renewed  the  national  covenant  ac- 
cording to  their  circumstances. 

The  king,  by  a  proclamation,  required  the  national  covenant  to  be 
renewed  in  a  repetition  of  the  same  form  of  words  in  which  it  had  been 
renewed  in  the  year  1590.  But  the  reformers  firmly  opposed  this  re- 
quisition. They  pleaded,  that  the  bond  which  they  had  framed  and 
sworn,  was  a  necessary  explication  of  the  former  covenant,  and  an  ap- 
plication of  it  to  their  then  present  circumstances  ;  while  it  was  still 
substantially  the  same  with  the  former  covenant,  and  a  renovation  of 
it.  I  may  read  an  extract  of  their  words :  "  What  is  the  use  of  march- 
stones  upon  the  borders  of  lands  :  the  like  use  have  confessions  of  faith 
in  the  kirk,  to  disterminate  and  divide  between  truth  and  eiTor ;  and 
tJie  renewing  and  applying  of  confessions  of  faith  to  the  present  errors 
and  corruptions,  are  not  unlike  the  riding  of  marches.  And  therefore 
to  content  ourselves  with  the  general,  and  to  return  to  it  from  the  par- 
ticular application  of  the  confession,  necessarily  made,  upon  the  inva- 
sion or  creeping  in  of  errors  within  the  borders  of  the  kirk ;  if  it  be 
not  a  removing  of  the  march-stone  from  its  own  place ;  it  is  at  least 
the  hiding  of  it  in  the  ground,  that  it  may  not  be  seen  ;  which  at  this 
time  were  very  unreasonable. "  And  in  another  of  their  reasons,  speak- 
ing concerning  the  sameness  of  the  national  covenant,  with  their  new 
bond,  they  say,  "There  is  no  substantial  difference  between  that  which 
we  have  now  subscribed  and  the  confession  subscribed  in  the  year  1580, 
more  than  there  is  between  that  which  is  hid  and  that  which  is  reveal- 
ed ;  between  a  march-stone  hid  in  the  ground,  and  one  uncovered  ; 
l^etween  the  hand  closed  and  open ;  between  the  sword  sheathed  and 
drawn." 

In  like  manner,  the  Assembly  in  1648,  appointed  the  renovation  of 
the  solemn  league,  with  a  new  acknowledgment  of  sins  and  engage- 
ment to  duties,  as  the  Associate  Presbytery  have  done. 

Hence,  it  is  evident,  that  a  new  bond,  or  what  you  call  a  new 
moulding  of  the  national  covenant,  or  the  solemn  league,  agreeably 
to  the  spirit  and  design  of  them,  is  so  far  from  being  against  a  real 
renovation  of  these  covenants,  that,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  the  only  way 
of  renewing  them  in  reality,  and  without  dissimulation.  For  these 
covenants  cannot  oblige  posterity  to  hold  the  truth,  or  to  prac- 
tise the  duty  therein  mentioned,  otherwise  than  according  to  the  cir- 


366  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

cumstances  iu  v/bich  tliey  come  to  be  placed  by  Divine  Piovicleiice.* 

*  To  tlie  same  purpose,  with  what  is  here  advanced  on  the  continuing  obli- 
gation of  the  covenants  of  our  ancestors,  and  on  the  manner  of  renewing  them 
in  a  bond  adapted  to  our  present  circumstances,  are  the  words  of  an  excellent 
paper,  said  to  have  been  written  by  the  Rev.  William  Logan,  in  the  year  1806, 
a  little  before  his  death ;  and  intended  to  have  been  communicated  to  the  Asso- 
ciate Refomed  Synod.  Whether  it  has  ever  been  communicated  to  that  reverend 
body,  is  unknown  to  the  writer  of  these  Dialogues  ;  but  as  be  received  it 
through  a  channel,  which  leaves  him  no  room  to  doubt  of  its  genuineness ;  as 
it  is  the  testimou}'  of  a  pious  and  judicious  minister,  given  at  the  close  of  life, 
to  a  very  important  article  of  the  cause  of  Gocf;  and  as  the  publication  of  it  is 
both  honorable  to  that  minister,  and  agreeable  to  his  intention  ;  it  is  hoped, 
that  the  candid  reader  will  be  gratified  by  the  following  extract. 

"  My  bodily  iutirmities  not  permitting  me  to  attend  the  meeting  of  Synod,  I 
thought  proper  to  signify  my  views  to  the  Reverend  Synod,  relative  to  their  minute 
on  the  head  of  public  covenanting  at  New  York,  1803,  in  which  it  is  asserted, 
'  That  it  is  not  possible  to  make  these  covenants,  as  they  stand,  part  of  the 
church's  Testimony  in  America.  To  be  at  all  applicable  to  the  circumstances 
of  this  church,  they  must  undergo  a  variety  of  alterations  ;  but  the  moment  that 
any  alteration  is  introduced  into  an  instrument  of  solemn  compact,  it  ceases  to 
be  the  same  insrument.'  Concerning  this,  it  may  be  observed,  that  in  a  civil 
contract,  indeed,  if  one  party  give  up  with  or  break  the  compact,  the  other 
party  is  freed  from  the  obligation  : — But  these  solemn  covenants  of  our  ances- 
tors or  predecessors  in  the  church,  were  engagmeuts  to  the  Most  High  God,  as 
well  as  to  one  another ;  in  which  the  party  vowing  or  swearing,  came  under  an 
obligation  to  all  the  duties,  they  owed  to  God  and  man. 

"These  are  the  terms  of  the  national  covenant  of  Scotland,  as  renewed  in  the 
year  1638  ;  and  also  of  the  solemn  league.  That  God  was  the  Great  Party  sworn 
to,  was  evident  from  the  nature  of  these  covenants,  and  the  terms  in  which 
they  were  expressed.  Mr.  Case,  in  his  tirst  sermon  at  the  talcing  of  the  Solemn 
League,  says,  '  The  parties  striking  this  covenant,  are  God  and  his  peoj)le. 
What  is  it  "then,  think  ye ;  when  a  king,  yea,  kingdoms  on  one  side,  and  the 
Great  God  on  the  other,  swear  mutually  to  one  another  ?'  Again ,  '  Beloved 
Christians,  this  is  the  end  of  covenants  and  oaths  between  God  and  his  people, 
viz.,  to  unite  and  secure  the  one  to  the  other.'  Covenants  of  that  kind  descend, 
iu  their  obligation,  to  posterity;  which  is  acknowledged  by  Synod,  as  to  the 
religious  parts  of  these  covenants ;  and  Mr.  Case  further  says,  concerning  the 
Solemn  League,  '  There  is  nothing  in  the  body  of  this  covenant,  which  is  not 
either  purely  religious,  or  has  a  tendency  to  religion,  conducing  to  the  securing 
and  promoting  thereof '  Such  covenants  are  obligatory  on  the  posterity  of  them 
who  entered  into  them,  Avherever  scattered  over  the  world,  even  in  virtue  of 
the  solemn  public  oaths  of  their  ancestors  ;  that  is,  to  the  discharge  of  all  the 
moral  duties  contained  iu  them,  accordin^to  the  calls  of  word  audiProvideuce,  and 
the  opportunities  laid  to  their  hand.  If  there  are  duties  mentioned  iu  these 
covenants,  which,  in  our  situation  and  circumstances  (such  as  those  respecting 
the  King  and  Parliament)  we  have  not  a  call  or  opportunity  of  discharging,  in 
that  case,  we  are  not  bound:  these  relations  are  now  dead  to  us  in  America; 
and  when  the  relation  ceases,  the  duties  formerly  due  to  that  relation  cease. 
The  law  of  God  binds  no  further  thau  to  the  duties  of  the  relation  and  circum- 
stances in  which  a  man  is  placed.  But  thouc;;h  we  are  not  to  consider  ourselves 
bound  by  these  covenants  to  some  of  the  things  mentioned,  for  the  reason  just 
now  given,  this  cannot  annul  the  obligation  we  are  under,  by  virtue  of  these 
covenants,  to  promote  the  reformation  cause  in  the  doctrine,  worship,  discipline 
and  government  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  of  which  we  are  a  branch.  These 
covenants,  by  a  very  small  exxDlication,  might  easily  apply  to  the  case  of  the 
church  in  America.  To  modify  them  in  this  manner,  I  would  suppose,  is  not 
to  destroy  them  I'^but  to  reduce  them  to  practice.  The  substance  of  explicit 
church  covenanting,  is  the  avouching  of  the  Lord  to  be  our  God  and  the  God 
of  our  seed,  solemnly  devoting  ourselves  and  our  posterity  to  him,  promising 
and  solemnly  swearing  iu  the  strength  of  his  grace  to  walk  in  his  ways,  to  keep 
his  commandments,  and  to  hearken  to  his  voice  ;  and  at  the  same  time,  expli- 
citly promising  the  discharge  of  the  duties  which  are  in  a  special  manner  called 


ALEXANDEE  AND  EUFUS,  367 

§  52,  Alex.  Why  do  the  Seceders  insist  so  mucli  on  public  cove- 
nanting? Are  we  not  sufficiently  bound  by  the  law  of  God  to  hold 
fast  our  pvofessiou,  and  to  continue  in  the  practice  of  our  duty  ? 

for  at  our  hand,  and  testifyiug  against  the  errors  and  corruptions  which  may  be 
most  prevalent,  and  frorn  which  we  may  be  in  the  greatest  danger.  It  would, 
indeed,  be  dreadful  in  us  to  swear  these  covenants  in  the  same  terms  in  which 
ihey  were  expressed  in  the  time  of  our  ancestors  :  this  would  be  to  swear  to 
the  discharge  of  the  duties  of  the  time  past ;  of  the  duties  which  are  not  requir- 
ed at  our  hand  ;  and  for  which  we  have  neither  grace  promised,  nor  opportunity 
of  performing.  When  we  covenant  with  God  and  Avith  one  another,  we  ouglit 
to  engage  to  the  discbarge  of  the  duties  of  our  own  situation  and  circumstances  ; 
and,  in  so  doing,  it  may  well  enough  be  said,  that  Ave  are  reucAviug  covenant 
with  God;  because  it  would  be  an  application  of  a  former  enf^agemeut,  or  our 
acting  upon-  the  obligation  Ave  are  already  under,  of  acknoAvledging  the  Lord  to  be 
our  God,and  promisiiag  the  discharge  of  the  duties  Ave  are  already  bound  to  perform 
by  virtue  of  the  solemn  oath  of  our  ancestors  or  predecessors  in  the  church ;  as,  on 
this  account,  Ave  are  not  in  the  same  situation  with  a  people,  Avho  neither  in 
their  own  persons,  nor  in  the  loins  of  their  ancestors  are,  in  this  explicit  man- 
ner, under  an  obligation  to  this  effect.  For  proof,  that  this  Avas  the  sense  in 
which  our  ane(;stors  understood  the  work  of  covenanting  among  them,  we  need 
only  refer  to  their  acts  and  deeds  in  relation  to  it.  President  Edwards  expresses 
himself  to  the  same  purpose,  concerning  the  Jews  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah. 
'After  this,'  says  he,  'having  separated  themselves  from  all  strangers,  they 
solemnly  observed  a  fast  by  hearing  the  Avord  of  God,  confessing  their  sins, 
and  rencAving  their  covenant  Avith  God.  A  church  in  this  situation,  supposed 
coA^enanting  with  God ;  a  recognizing  the  obligation,  they  Avere  previously  irn- 
der,  to  obedience.'  For  my  part,  I  cannot  vicAV  the  matter  in  any  other  light, 
Avithout  endeavoring  to  deny  or  conceal  the  former  obligation.  The  form  of 
the  covenant,  in  respect  of  the  Avords,  may  be  called  another ;  but  not  in  res- 
pect of  the  substance :  for  the  substance  of  the  church's  testimony  is  the  same 
in  all  periods  of  it.  '  Ye  are  my  Avitnesses,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  am  God.'  Mr. 
Calamy.  on  this  head,  expresses  himself  to  the  same  purpose,  in  his  sermon  at 
the  taking  of  the  Solemn  League.  He  observes,  that  '  the  Israelties  had  not 
only  a  covenant  of  circumcision,  but  rencAved  a  covenant  at  Horeb  and  at  Moab ; 
and  again  and  again  bound  themselves  to  the  Lord  by  a^ow  and  covenant.  And 
thus,  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  christians,  besides  their  vow  in  baptism,  have  many 
national  and  personal  engagements  to  perform  iinto  God  by  coA'euaut ;  Avhich  is 
nothing  else  but  the  reuoA'ation  and  particular  application  of  the  first  a'oav  in 
baptism.  Their  after  covenanting  must  be  a  reuoA^ation  of  their  former  cove- 
nanting, though  expressed  in  Avords  accomodated  to  their  present  situation  and 
circumstances.' 

"  If  the  obligation  of  the  covenants  of  our  ancestors  cannot  be  owned  for  sub- 
stance, Avhen  the  situation  of  the  church  and  particiilar  church  members  are 
such  that  they  have  not  an  opportunity  of  discharging  some  duties  in  them 
through  a  change  of  circumstances  ;  what  must  have  been  the  state  of  the  mar- 
tyrs under  Charles  the  Second  and  James  the  Second,  when  they  became  per- 
secutors and  tyrants?  Numbers  of  those  heroic  confessors  of  the  truth  disoAvued 
the  authority  of  these  persecutors  and  tyrants  :  and  at  the  same  time  OAvned  the 
obligation  of  their  covenants  for  reformation,  and  sealed  their,  testimony  with 
their  blood :  though  they  declared,  that  they  Avere  not  under  an  obligation  from 
these  covenants  to  defend  the  King  or  to  maintain  the  privileges  of  the  Parlia- 
ment, when  both  were  prostituting  the  poAver,  they  claimed,  to  the  destruction 
of  true  religion,  and  of  the  liberty  of  the  subject." 

Mr.  Logan,  having  thus  shown  hoAV  the  covenants  of  our  ancestors  or  prede- 
cessors in  the  church  ought  to  be  renewed,  gives  it  as  his  judgment,  that  the  prac- 
tice of  public  covenanting  is  seasonable  at  present,  and  con'tirms  this  judgment 
by  A'arious  weighty  reasons. 

"  I  confess,"  says  he,  "I  cannot  give  a  satisfactory  answer  to  such  as  inquire 
why  the  Synod  does  not  proceed  to  public  explicit  covenanting  with  God.  Pub- 
lic covenautiug  is  a  duty  suited  to  every  generation  of  church'members.  '  Voav 
and  pay  unto  the  Lord,'  is  an  express  precept.    But  if  this  duty  is  to  be  omitted 


368  ALEXA.NDER  AND  RUfUS. 

RuF.  It  miglit  as  well  be  asked,  why  is  an  oath,  by  which  witnesses 
in  civil  courts  engage  to  speak  the  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth, 
insisted  on  ?  For  they  are  under  the  highest  obligation  to  do  so 
from  the  law  of  God.  It  is  true,  nothing  can  be  added  to  the  obli- 
gation of  the  Divine  law  in  point  of  authority  ;  but  the  ol)ligation  of 
an  oath  is  of  another  kind,  and  is  appointed  by  the  Divine  law  itself, 
as  a  proper  means  of  impressing  the  mind  with  a  deeper  sense  of  its 
authority  and  obligation. 

The  public  and  joint  engagement  of  church  members  to  adhere  to 
the  truths  and  ordinances  of  Christ,  is  one  of  the  appointed  means  of 
promoting  their  steadfastness,  amidst  manifold  temptations  to  luke- 
warmness  and  wavering.  Hence  the  Israelites  were  soleomly  charg- 
ed to  "  remember  the  day  on  which  they  stood  before  the  Lord  in 
Horeb,''  as  a  preservative  against  relapsing  into  idolatry  ;  Deut. 
iv.  9,  10. 

In  public  covenanting,  a  professing  people  declare  in  the  most  ex- 
press and  solemn  manner,  that  Jehovah  is  their  God.  They  avouch 
him  to  be  their  God,  Deut.  xxvi.  17,  upon  the  ground  of  his  pro- 
mise, "  I  will  be  your  God,  and  ye  shall  be  my  people."  They  ac- 
knowledge,  in  this  peculiarly  solemn  and  impressive   manner,  their 

except  in  very  singular  emera^encies  of  the  cliurcli,  or  what  church  officers  deem 
to  be  such ;  it  may  not  be  attended  to  for  many  generations  ;  tliough  still  con- 
fessed to  be  a  moral  duty.  Public  covenanting" has  been  eminently  countenanc- 
ed by  God,  and  been  a  singular  mean  ot  bringing  about  a  revival  in  the 
churches.  It  was  the  glory  of  the  British  and  of  the  Irish  Presbyterian  churches. 
It  is  a  duty  which  many  professors  of  religion  seem  industriously  to  shun. 
But,  in  so  doing,  they  are  far  from  being  suitably  exercised.  It  is  a  duty  aa 
really  belonging  to  the  church  as  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper;  aud  bears  a 
special  reference  to  the  covenant  of  grace.  Deut.  xxvi.  17.  '  Thou  hast  avouch- 
ed the  Lord  this  day  to  be  thy  God,  and  to  walk  in  his  ways,  and  to  keep  his 
statutes,  aud  his  commandments  and  his  judgments,  and  to  hearken  to  his  voice.' 
We  ought  to  avouch  the  Lord  to  be  our"  God,  with  all  the  solemnity  possi- 
ble :  even  with  the  solemnity  of  an  oath.  This  appears  from  precepts,  promises 
and  prophecies  of  Scripture,  and  from  reason.  Tlmt  it  is  seasonable  at  this 
time,  appears  from  various  considei-ations.  Temptations  are  many  and  strong, 
whereby  professors  of  religion  are  in  hazard.  lufidelity  and  irreligion  are  pre- 
valent. Heresies  and  delusions  abound,  whereby  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel  are 
clouded.  There  appears  to  be  a  general  restraint  of  the  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  The  Lord  has  been  justly  displeased:  we,  with  our  fathers,  have  sin- 
ned; therefore,  we  ought  to  turn  unto  the  Lord.  They  shall  ask  the  way  to 
Zion  Avith  their  ftices  thitherward,  sayiug,  Come,  and  let  us  join  ourselves  to 
the  Lord  in  a  perpetual  covenant  that  shall  not  be  forgotten.  If  it  be  objected, 
that  we  profess  the  truth  at  large  in  our  systems  of  truth ;  to  this  it  may  be 
answered,  that  we  do  not  confess"  in  as  explicit  a  manner  as  we  are  warranted 
to  do,  even  with  the  solemnity  of  an  oath  ;  nor  are  we  giving  others  that  assur- 
ance w^hich  we  have  in  our  power  to  do :  an  oath,  for  confirmation  is  to  men 
an  end  of  all  strife  :  nor  do  we  honor  God  so  explicitly  as  we  might  by  solemn 
explicit  covenanting,  in  confessing  the  being,  the  perfections,  the  cause  and  in- 
terest of  the  living  God." 

From  this  extract  it  appears,  that  this  pious  minister  died  a  hearty  friend 
to  a  testimony  for  the  obligation  of  the  covenants  of  our  forefathers  on  posteri- 
ty, and  for  the  seasonableness  of  public  covenanting  in  the  present  day.  To  this 
case,  the  words  of  the  poet  are  applicable  : 

A  death-bed's  a  detector  of  the  heart, 

TOtJNG. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  369 

new  covenant  relation  to  God  in  Christ,  both  as  the  most  engaging 
motive  to  obedience,  and  as  the  most  powerful  plea,  that  they  can 
use  in  prayer. 

Public  covenanting  is  an  eminent  mean  of  promoting  mutual  con- 
fidence among  people  engaged  in  the  same  cause.  It  is  the  native 
expression  of  zeal  for  the  truths  and  ways  of  Christ ;  particularly, 
when  they  meet  with  remarkable  opposition.  Some  have  represented 
covenanting  as  tending  to  discourage  free  inquiry  in  matters  of  reli- 
gion. But  the  truth  is  it  excites  christians  to  search  the  scriptures  : 
for  when  they  are  convinced  that  it  is  their  duty  to  promise,  with  the 
solemnity  of  an  oath,  a  steadfast  adherence  to  the  various  articles  of 
their  religious  profession,  they  find,  that  if  they  would  not  awfully 
profane  the  name  of  God,  by  swearing  ignorantly  or  falsely,  they 
must  have  a  clear  and  distinct  understanding  of  these  articles,  as  con- 
tained in  the  word  of  God. 

Our  joining  in  public  covenanting,  has  a  manifest  tendency  to  give 
the  world  in  general,  and  especially  other  churches  a  deep  impression 
of  the  importance  of  those  truths,  that  are  specified  or  particularly 
referred  to,  in  our  solemn  engagement.  Who  can  read  or  hear  the 
declaration  of  one  of  the  ancient  fathers,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  con- 
cerning his  belief  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  without  being  affected 
with  the  infinite  importance  of  that  doctrine  ? 

"  By  the  eternal  Word  I  swear,  even  by  that  great  Divinity,  who, 
being  the  brightness  of  his  Father's  glory,  and  in  nature  equal  to 
him,  came  down  to  us  from  his  eternal  kingdom.  I  solemnly  swear, 
that  I  will  never  embrace  any  evil  opinion,  repugnant  to  the  truth ; 
that  I  will  never  exchange  the  true  God  for  another— particularly, 
the  eternal  Word  for  one  of  inferior  dignity ;  and  that,  by  no  appli- 
cation, shall  I  ever  be  induced  to  divide  the  Divine  honor  due  to  the 
ever  blessed  Trinity,  "f 

Hence,  public  covenanting  is  a  proper  mean  of  handing  down  to 
posterity,  what  the  church  of  Christ  has  attained  in  doctrine,  wor- 
ship, discipline  and  government,  as  a  sacred  trust  to  future  gen- 
erations. 

In  fine,  public  covenanting  has  been  eminently  countenanced  by 
Heaven.  It  has  been  attended  by  the  remarkable  outpouring  of  the 
Divine  Spirit.  Mr.  Livingston  was  an  eye-witness  of  the  covenant- 
ing of  Scotland,  in  the  year  1638.  "  I  was  present,"  says  he,  '*  at 
Lanark,  and  in  several  other  parishes,  when  on  a  sabbath,  after  the 
forenoon's  sermon,  the  covenant  was  read  and  sworn  : — And  I  may 
truly  say,  that  in  all  my  life-time,  excepting  one  day  at  the  kirk  of 
Shots,  I  never  saw  such  motions  from  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  the  people 
generally  and  most  willingly  concurring.     I  have  seen  more  than  a 

*  As  quoted  by  Voetius,  Theolog.  Dispat.  selectis,  parte  prima,  page  481 

24 


370  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

thousand  persons,  all  at  once,  lifting  up  their  hands,  and  the  tears 
falling  down  from  their  eyes;"f 

This  work  went  on  prosperously,  though  there  were  many  adver- 
saries, till  the  friends  of  reformation  saw  the  good  cause,  for  which 
they  had  suffered  long,  acknowledged,  in  the  swearing  of  the  solemn 
league  and  covenant,  by  persons  of  all  ranks  in  the  three  kingdoms. 

§  53.  Alex.  Do  not  mistake  me,  as  if  I  were  an  enemy  to  cove- 
nanting. No,  I  think  it  both  a  duty  and  a  privilege,  when  rightly 
performed,  and  in  agreeableness  to  the  word  of  God.  But  I  repro- 
bate the  new  oath  and  covenant  of  the  Associate  Presbytery,  which 
I  mentioned  before  ;  because,  as  Mr,  Willison  declares,  in  the  ap- 
pendix to  his  Testimony,  having  adopted  and  approved  a  confession 
of  sins,  prefixed  to  it,  they  swore  by  the  great  name  of  the  Lord  God, 
with  their  hands  lifted  up  to  the  Lord,  that  they  will  testify  against 
the  evils  named  in  that  confession ;  while  thousands  join  in  their 
oath,  who  cannot  say,  that  they  know  the  truth  of  many  things  con- 
tained in  that  confession  of  sins,  from  their  own  proper  knowledge  : 
but  only  have  them  from  hearsay,  or  by  information  from  others  ;  and 
yet  they  must  swear  to  the  truth  of  them  as  fully,  as  if  they  had  been 
eye  or  ear  witnesses  of  them,  or  had  read  all  the  histories  concern- 
ing them.  Now,  what  is  this,  but  to  make  people  swear  rashly  or 
inconsiderately,  or  upon  implicit  faith  ? 

RuF.  This,  I  know,  is  a  common  objection  against  the  bond 
agreed  on  by  the  Associate  Presbytery.  I  have  often  heard  it  re- 
peated, as  if  it  demonstrated  the  Seceders  to  be  perjured.  But  for 
my  own  part,  I  could  never  see  it  in  any  other  light,  than  as  a  re- 
markable instance  of  the  power  of  prejudice.  In  other  cases,  every 
one  must  allow  the  supposition,  on  which  this  objection  proceeds,  to 
be  most  absurd.  If  a  minister,  for  example,  mentions  the  sickness  of 
a  person  in  the  public  prayers,  whilst  he  knows  nothing  of  the  per- 
son's case,  but  by  the  information  of  one  who  desires  him  to  be  re- 
commended in  the  public  prayers,  the  minister  is  just  in  as  great 
danger  of  the  guilt  of  lying  to  the  congregation,  and  even  to  his 
Maker,  as  a  swearer  of  the  bond  above-mentioned,  is  in  of  perjury. 
Nay,  is  not  his  danger  far  greater  ?  because  he  has  not  such  testimo- 
ny to  proceed  upon,  nor  such  opportunity  of  deliberation,  as  the 
swearer  of  that  bond  must  be  acknowledged  to  have. 

Again,  when  a  person  comes  forward  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  sup- 
per, it  is  allowed,  that  he  renews  his  baptismal  engagements  ',  and 
his  doing  so,  implies  a  confession  of  his  breaches  of  these  engage- 
ments. Now,  supposing  him  to  belong  to  a  church  that  practises  in- 
fant baptism  ;  he  may  be  in  the  same  danger  with  the  swearer  of  the 
bond  in  question  ;  skice  he  may  know  nothing  of  his  own  baptism, 
but  by  the  information  of  others  ?     As  the  Lord,  in  the  second  com- 

t  See  Mr.  Livingston's  Memoirs. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  371 

mandment,  threatens  to  visit  the  iniquities  of  the  fathers  upon  the 
children,  unto  the  third  and  fourth  generation ;  so  the  children,  in 
these  generations,  are  to  confess  their  own  iniquities,  and  those  of 
their  fathers  ;  Levit.  xxvi.  40. 

But,  according  to  the  principle  of  this  objection,  we  are  not  to 
give  glory  to  God,  by  confessing  the  iniquity  of  our  fathers,  or  even 
that  of  others  in  our  own  day,  unless  we  have  been  eye  and  ear  wit- 
nesses of  it.  At  this  rate,  there  is  no  worshiping  Assembly  that 
can  warrantably  join  in  the  confession  of  the  public  sins  of  the  for- 
mer, or  even  of  the  present  generation  :  for  it  is  not  supposable,  that 
all  the  individuals  of  such  an  Assembly  have  been  eye  and  ear  wit- 
nesses of  every  public  sin.  After  all,  it  is  a  bare-faced  falsehood, 
that,  in  confessing  public  sins,  or  in  engaging  to  contend  and  testify 
against  them,  it  is  at  all  intended  to  ascertain  the  truth  of  the  facts, 
as  in  the  depositions  of  witnesses.  In  ihis  case,  as  in  the  public 
prayers  for  the  sick,  in  a  person's  professing  to  renew  his  baptismal 
engagements  at  the  Lord's  table,  and  in  similar  cases,  the  truth 
of  the  facts  is  proceeded  upon,  as  what  is  otherwise  sufficiently  as- 
certained. 

The  professions,  which  we  make  on  such  occasions,  respect  our 
duty  with  regard  to  the  facts,  on  the  supposition  that  they  exist. 
We  have  a  Divine  warrant  for  considering  the  testimony  of  other 
men  as  a  sufficient  ground  to  proceed  upon  in  most  important  du- 
ties :  ''  In  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses,  shall  every  word  be 
established  ;"  Duet,  xxvii.  6  ;  2  Corinth,  xiii.  1.  With  regard  to 
the  reference  in  the  bond  to  the  preceding  confession  of  sins,  it  is 
surely  agreeable  to  the  general  tenor  of  scripture,  that,  having  con- 
fessed public  sins,  we  should  resolve,  through  grace,  to  contend  and 
testify  against  them  ;  and  that,  having  acknowledged  the  necessity  of 
reformation  in  various  instances,  we  should  engage,  in  our  several 
places  and  stations,  to  promote  that  reformation. 

The  covenant,  which  was  entered  into  in  Nehemiah's  time,  had 
a  like  reference  to  a  preceding  acknowledgment  of  sins,  which  con- 
cludes with  these  words  :  "  Because  of  all  this,  we  make  a  sure  cove- 
nant ;"  Nehem.  ix.  38.  Such  a  reference  to  evils  confessedly  pre- 
vailing, belonged  to  the  bond,  by  which  the  national  covenant  of 
Scotland  was  renewed  in  the  year  1638.  There  is  a  passage  to  the 
same  purpose  in  the  engagement  to  duties,  which  was  used  in  the  re- 
newing of  the  solemn  league  and  covenant,  by  the  people  of  Scot- 
land, in  the  year  1648.*  But  it  is  probable,  that  the  two  last  men- 
tioned   examples  of    public    covenanting,  will   soon   be    forgotten 

*  The  words  of  the  passage  referred  to,  are  as  follows  : — "  Because  it  is  needful, 
for  those  who  find  mercy,  not  only  to  confess,  but  also,  to  forsake  their  sin : 
therefore,  that  the  reality  and  sincerity  of  our  repentance  may  aj^pear,  we  do  re- 
solve, and  solemnly  engage  ourselves  before  the  Lord,  carefully  to  avoid,  for  the 
time  to  come,  all  these  otfences,  whereof  we  have  now  made  solemn  public  ac- 
knowledgment." 


372  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

amongst  us  ;  as  in  our  New  Edition  of  the  Westminster  Confession, 
the  copies  of  these  public  deeds,  which  used  to  be  annexed  to  that 
confession,  are  left  out.  In  this  designed  omission,  we  have  acted,  I 
fear,  more  like  the  foes  than  the  friends  of  public  covenanting  ;  with 
whatever  forwardness  some  of  us  may  profess  to  think  it  both  a  duty 
and  a  privilege. 

There  can  be  no  ground  for  alleging,  that  they  who  entered  into 
the  bond,  proposed  by  the  Associate  Presbytery,  did  so  rashly,  in- 
considerately, or  upon  implicit  faith,  on  account  of  the  reference  in 
it  to  the  preceding  confession  of  public  evils  ;  unless  we  can  suppose, 
that  they  had  no  opportunity  of  being  acquainted  with  such  human 
testimony,  concerniog  the  existence  of  these  evils,  as  may  warranta- 
bly  be  proceeded  upon  in  such  cases.  But  no  such  supposition  can 
be  justly  made,  with  regard  to  facts  which  might  easily  be  found  in 
the  most  public  and  authentic  histories  and  records  of  the  king- 
dom. Nay,  the  most  serious  people  in  Scotland,  lovers  of  the  cove- 
nanted reformation,  had  been  complaining,  for  many  years  before,  of 
the  very  evils  that  are  enumerated  in  the  Associate  Presbytery's  con- 
fession of  sins. 

Besides,  when  it  is  proposed  to  set  about  covenanting  in  any  par- 
ticular congregation  of  the  Secession,  a  public  intimation  of  it  is 
made  a  considerable  time  before  ;  during  which  time,  various  meet- 
ings of  session  are  held,  for  conversing  with  and  receiving  such  as 
offer  themselves  to  join  in  the  bond. 

Alex.  Mr.  Willison  asserts,  that  some  articles  of  the  Associate 
Presbytery's  acknowledgment  of  public  sins,  are  false  in  fact,  calam- 
nious,  unjust  and  uncharitable.* 

Rup.  He  has  indeed  quoted  some  articles  of  that  acknowledgment, 
which,  he  says,  are  instances  of  falsehood.  But  his  publishing  this 
assertion  without  any  reason  or  proof,  was  not  doing  justice  either  to 
the  Associate  Presbytery  or  to  his  readers.  The  Associate  Presby- 
tery state  most  of  these  instances  more  fully,  and  give  the  grounds  of 
their  statement  in  the  Judicial  Testimony  ;  and  if  there  had  been  any 
falsehood  in  their  statement,  Mr.  Willison  might  have  easily  detected 
it  in  a  satisfactory  manner.  This  he  has  not  done.  We  have,  how- 
ever, examined  every  one  of  his  instances  ;  and  have  found  no  reason 
to  charge  the  Associate  Presbytery  with  falsehood,  or  any  sort  of 
misrepresentation. 

Alex.  Supposing  the  facts  stated  in  the  Associate  Presbytery's 
confession  of  sins  were  sufl&ciently  ascertained ;  they  are,  in  a  great 
measure,  antiquated,  and  have  comparatively  little  influence  on  pres- 
ent conduct. 

RuF.  As  the  Lord  threatens  to  visit  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers 
npon  the  children,  so  people  are  called  to  confess  the  iniquity  of  their 

*  Imp.  Test,  page  221. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  373 

fathers ;  that  is,  not  only  of  their  immediate  parents,  but  of  their 
other  predecessors  in  the  particular  church  of  which  they  are  mem- 
bers ;  Levit.  xxvi.  40.  In  the  prayers  of  God's  people,  recorded  in 
scripture,  we  find  them  often  confessing  the  sins  of  their  fathers. 
"  We  have  sinned,"  says  the  church,  "  with  our  fathers ;"  Psal.  cvi. 
6.  "  For  our  sins,"  says  Daniel,  "  and  for  the  iniquities  of  our  fath- 
ers, Jerusalem  and  thy  people  are  become  a  reproach  to  all  that  are 
about  us  ;"  Dan.  iv.  16.  On  occasion  of  the  covenanting  in  Nehe- 
miah's  time,  many  sins  of  Israel  were  confessed,  as  having  then  great 
influence  on  the  state  of  the  church,  though  they  had  been  committed 
a  thousand  years  before  : — Whereas,  the  date  of  the  first  of  the  pub- 
lic sins  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  specified  in  the  Associate  Pres- 
bytery's acknowledgment,  was  not  an  hundred  years  before  the  fram- 
ing of  that  acknowledgment.  The  view  we  took,  in  a  former  con- 
versation, of  these  public  evils,  as  they  are  stated  in  the  Judicial  Tes- 
timony^ leads  us  to  consider  them  as  having  great  influence  upon  the 
conduct  of  the  present  generation.  For  example,  the  laxness,  which 
now  prevails  with  regard  to  church  communion,  was  begun  among 
presbyterians,  in  the  public  resolutions,  in  the  acceptance  of  indul- 
gencies,  and  other  sinful  compliances  with  the  civil  powers  :  the  de- 
nial of  the  obligation  of  the  covenants,  entered  into  for  the  advance- 
ment of  religion  and  reformation,  was  begun  ;  first,  in  various  back- 
sliding courses,  contrary  to  these  engagements  ;  and  then,  in  the  acts 
rescissory,  declaring  them  treasonable.  It  is  easy  to  trace  the  con- 
nection of  other  public  evils,  mentioned  in  the  presbytery's  acknow- 
ledgment of  sins,  with  various  corruptions  in  the  present  day.  l^o 
length  of  time  will  free  a  church  or  nation  from  the  guilt  of  such 
public  evils,  without  a  public  acknowledgment  of  them,  and  humilia- 
tion on  account  of  them.  The  long  neglect  of  these  duties,  instead 
of  lessening,  increases  the  guilt ;  and  being  persisted  in,  will  provoke 
Jehovah  to  come  out  of  his  place  to  inflict  exemplary  punishment, 
when  the  earth  will  "  disclose  her  blood,  and  no  more  cover  her  slain:" 
Isai.  xxvi.  21.  The  Lord  brought  ruin  upon  Jerusalem  by  the 
Chaldeans,  for  what  Manasseh  had  done  an  hundred  years  before  that 
catastrophe  :  2  Kings  xxiii.  26.  It  is  impious  to  represent  such 
public  evils  as  antiquated  facts,  as,  on  account  of  their  date,  no  more 
causes  of  God's  wrath,  no  more  grounds  of  humiliation.  According 
to  this  supposition,  if  God  should  visit  the  iniquity  of  our  fathers 
upon  the  present  generation,  he  would  be  dealing  unjustly  1  It  should 
be  considered,  that  God  punishes  the  sins  of  individuals,  or  lets  them 
pass  with  impunity  in  the  present  life,  as  he  sees  proper  for  his  own 
glory.  It  is  chiefly  in  a  future  state  that  he  will  reckon  with  them 
in  that  capacity.  But  the  case  is  otherwise  with  churches  and  na- 
tions. They  have  only  a  temporal  existence.  And  therefore  the 
honor  of  God,  as  the  moral  Governor  of  the  world,  requires  that 
churches  and  nations,  persisting  obstinately  in  open  impiety,  should 
be  punished  in  the  present  life. 


374  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

§  54.  Alex.  Mr.  Willison  says,  that  in  the  oath  and  covenant  of 
the  Associate  Presbytery,  there  aie  same  things  ambiguous,  obscure 
and  doubtful,  which  great  numbers  of  the  takers  know  not  the  mean- 
ing of ;  and  so  cannot  swear  in  judgment  and  in  righteousness  :  as, 
for  instance,  when  they  abjure  independency  and  latitudinarian  ten- 
ets :  these  are  words  very  general,  dark  and  dubious,  to  which  the 
imposers  may  affix  any  meaning  they  think  proper.* 

RuF.  It  would,  no  doubt,  be  a  sufficient  objection  against  the  bond 
of  the  Associate  Presbytery,  if  the  terms,  in  which  it  is  expressed, 
had  no  certain  determinate  sense.  The  end  of  an  oath  is  to  take 
away  or  prevent  controversy  :  but  such  ambiguity  would  rather  oc- 
casion it.  It  appears,  however,  to  have  been  the  plainness  and  sim- 
plicity of  the  terms,  used  in  the  bond  of  the  Associate  Presbytery, 
that  offended  Mr.  Willison  and  others.  If,  instead  of  "independency 
and  latitudinarian  tenets,"  the  Associate  Presbytery  had  only  said, 
errors  "  with  regard  to  church  government,"  they  would  perhaps 
have  escaped  Mr.  Willison's  censure,  which  you  have  now  recited; 
but  the  expression  would  have  been  much  more  general  and  indeter- 
minate; according  less  with  the  faithfulness,  which  they  studied,  to 
God  and  to  the  souls  of  men,  than  the  terms  they  have  used.  We 
find  the  word  Independency,  among  other  terms,  denoting  errone- 
ous schemes  contrary  to  the  purity  of  religion,  in  the  acknowledg- 
ment of  sins  and  the  engagement  to  duties,  with  which  the  Solemn 
League  and  Covenant  was  renewed  in  Scotland,  in  the  year  I648.f 

Besides,  the  Associate  Presbytery  had  shown,  in  what  sense  they 
understood  this  term,  in  the  following  words  of  the  introduction  to 
their  Declaration  and  Testimony  :  "  They  judged  it  necessary  to 
enter  into  a  Presbyterial  Association,  not  only  for  maintaining  that 
order  among  themselves,  which  is  required  by  the  word  of  God  ;  but 
also,  to  distinguish  themselves  from  those  of  the  sectarian  and  inde- 
pendent way,  who  lodge  the  keys  of  government  and  discipline  in  the 
whole  community  of  the  faithful. " 

With  regard  to  latitudinarian  tenets,  the  presbytery  have  declared 
what  they  meant,  when  they  say,  in  the  acknowledgment  of  sins, 
**  That  by  these  tenets,  any  particular  form  of  church  government  is 
denied  to  be  of  Divine  institution  ;  and  under  a  pretence  of  catholic 
love,  a  scheme  is  laid  for  uniting  parties  of  all  denominations  in 
church  communion,  in  a  way  destructive  of  any  testimony  for  the  de- 
clarative glory  of  Immanuel,  as  Head  and  King  of  Zion,  a,nd  for  the 
covenanted  reformation  of  this  church  and  land  :"  and  when  they 

*  Imp.  Test,  page,  223. 

t  The  -svords  of  that  engagement  are  these  :  "  The  securing  and  preserving  the 
purity  of  religion  against  all  error,  heresy  and  schism,  nainely,  Independency, 
Anabaptism,  Antinomianism,  Arminianism  and  Erastianism,  shall  be  studied  and 
endeavored  by  us." 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  375 

say,  in  another  paragraph  of  the  same  acknowledgment,  ^'  That  by 
latituclinarian,  independent  and  sectarian  extremes,  the  unity  of  the 
true  catholic  church  is  denied ;  the  presbyterial  order  and  govern- 
ment, the  only  government  which  Christ  has  instituted  in  his  house, 
is  subverted  ;  and  the  warrantableness  and  great  design  of  confes- 
sions of  faith  and  catechisms,  as  tests  of  soundness  in  the  faith,  is 
overthrown." 

Alex.  Mr.  Willison  adds,  I  am  sure,  there  are  many  valuable 
ministers  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  precious  sons  of  Zion,  whom  Christ 
honors  and  admits  to  near  communion  with  himself,  w^ho  will  not 
venture  to  swear  such  an  oath.* 

RuF.  And  what  then  ?  Does  it  necessarily  follow,  that  the  swear- 
ing of  such  an  oath  is  sinful  ?  There  are  precious  ministers  and  sons  of 
Zion,  who  will  not  venture  to  subscribe  the  Westminster  Confession 
of  Faith  and  the  form  of  presbyterial  church  government.  But  it 
will  not  certainly  follow,  that  the  subscription  of  these  subordinate 
standards  is  sinful ;  for  there  are  no  less  precious  ministers  and  sons 
of  Zion,  who  hold  such  a  subscription,  in  the  present  state  of  the 
visible  church,  to  be  their  indispensable  duty.  The  truth  is,  the 
most  eminent  men  are  to  be  followed  no  further  than  they  follow 
Christ. 

§  55.  Alex.  The  Associate  Presbytery  have  been  greatly  censured 
for  their  act,  dated  at  Edinburgh,  February  14th,  1744 ;  in  which 
they  agree  and  determine,  that  the  swearing  of  the  foresaid  covenant 
should  be  the  term  of  ministerial  communion  with  them  :  and  like- 
wise the  term  of  christian  communion  to  the  people,  with  respect  to 
their  partaking  of  the  seals  of  God's  covenant.  A  surprising  act,  in- 
deed, exclaims  Mr.  Willison.  It  is  a  term  of  the-  brethren's  making  ; 
for  which  they  have  no  warrant  in  God's  word.  It  is  a  manifest 
usurpation  and  encroachment  upon  the  Headship  of  the  King  of 
Zion  ;  and  an  infringement  of  that  precious  article  of  our  creed,  "  the 
communion  of  saints,  "f 

RuF.  I  shall  read  you  the  words  of  the  presbytery's  act :  ''  They 
did  agree,  resolve  and  determine,  that  the  renovation  of  the  national 
covenant  of  Scotland,  and  of  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant  of 
the  three  nations,  in  the  manner  now  agreed  upon  and  proposed  by 
the  presbytery,  shall  be  the  term  of  ministerial  communion  with  the 
presbytery ;  and  likewise  of  christian  communion,  in  the  admission 
of  people  to  sealing  ordinances ;  secluding  therefrom,  all  opposers, 
slighters  and  contemners  of  the  said  renovation  of  our  covenants  j 
or  such  as,  after  deliberate  pains  taken  for  their  information,  with 
all  due  meekness  and  patience,  shall  be  found,  by  the  session  or  su- 
perior judicatories,  to  which  they  are  subject,  to  be  neglecters  and 
shifters  of  this  important  moral  duty  ;  or  not  to  be,  themselves,  in  the 
due  use  of  means,  for  light  and  satisfaction  about  it." 

*  Ipap.  Test,  page  323.  t  Ibid,  pages  220,  231. ' 


376  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

Mr.  Willison  represents  this  as  a  term  of  the  brethren's  own  mak- 
ing ;  for  which  they  have  no  warrant  in  God's  word.  In  order  to 
prove  this  assertion,  it  would  have  been  necessary  to  show,  with  re- 
gard to  the  matter  or  the  manner  of  their  covenanting,  that  it  is 
something  not  required  in  the  word  of  God. 

With  regard  to  the  matter  of  their  bond  or  covenant,  as  compre- 
hending a  testimony  against  various  public  evils  and  grounds  of  God's 
controversy  with  the  church  and  nation,  Mr.  Willison,  indeed,  con- 
demns several  articles  of  the  presbytery's  acknowledgment  of  these 
evils  ;  but  we  have  seen,  that  in  doing  so,  he  is  neither  consistent 
with  the  truth,  nor  himself.  And  supposing  such  evils  to  have  really 
taken  place— nothing  is  more  evident,  than  that  the  scripture  requires 
us  to  mourn  for  them,  and  testify  against  them.  Ministers  ought  to 
lift  up  their  voice  like  a  trumpet,  and  show  the  professing  people  of 
God  their  transgressions.  Those  whom  the  Lord  marks  for  safety 
in  an  evil  day,  are  such  as  sigh  and  mourn  for  the  abomination  done 
in  the  midst  of  the  land.  It  was  the  practice  of  the  prophets  under 
the  Old  Testament  dispensation,  and  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  under 
the  New,  to  testify  against  the  errors  and  corruptions  that  prevailed 
in  their  times.  Their  example,  in  this  respect,  is  undoubtedly  for 
our  imitation.  And  here,  it  is  necessary  to  observe,  that  such  is  the 
perfection  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  that  they  are  not  more  against  the 
errors  and  corruptions  of  the  periods  in  which  they  were  first  written, 
than  they  are  against  those  of  every  subsequent  period.  They  no 
less  require  us  to  condemn  the  compliance  of  the  ministers  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland  with  the  acts  of  Parliament,  concerning  the  oath 
of  abjuration,  and  concerning  patronages,  than  to  condemn  the  com- 
pliance of  the  ten  tribes  of  Israel  with  Jeroboam's  command  to  wor- 
ship the  calves  of  Dan  and  Bethel.  They  bind  us  to  abhor  the  sin 
of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  in  suffering  the  errors  of  Mr.  Simson  and 
Mr.  Campbell  to  pass  without  due  censure,  as  well  as  to  abhor  the 
iniquity  of  the  Church  of  Thyatira,  in  suffering  the  woman  Jezebel  to 
teach  and  seduce  the  Lord's  servants. 

How  absurd  is  it  to  charge  ministers  with  making  new  terms  of 
communion,  for  no  other  reason  than  this  ;  that  they  make  a  just 
and  necessary  application  of  God's  word,  to  various  cases  of  error 
and  corruption  that  take  place  in  their  own  times ;  and  that  they  re- 
fuse to  admit  such  persons  to  sealing  ordinances  as  avow  their  obsti- 
nate attachment  to  opinions  and  practices  which  are  just  as  contrary 
to  the  words  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  those  of  Hymeneus  and  Phil- 
etus,  or  of  any  other  false  teachers  in  the  times  of  the  apostle.  It  is 
most  evident,  that  Mr.  Willison  has  not  pointed  out  any  thing  in  the 
matter  of  the  Associate  Presbytery's  bond  or  acknowledgment  of  sins, 
that  can,  in  the  least  degree,  serve  to  support  the  charge  he  brings 
against  them,  of  requiring  terms  of  communion  which  Christ  does  not 
require  in  his  word,  or  of  determining  any  thing  to  be  sin  or  duty, 
which  he  has  not  made  so. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  377 

Nor  was  there  any  thing  in  the  manner  of  their  covenanting,  which 
afforded  Mr.  Willison  a  pretence  for  this  charge.  He  himself,  as  we 
have  seen,  has  proved  by  various  places  of  scripture,  that  public  cov- 
enanting is  a  duty  of  the  church  under  the  New  Testament  dispensa- 
tion. We  cannot  suppose,  that  Mr.  Willison  would  object  against 
the  Associate  Presbytery,  because,  in  their  covenanting,  they  pro- 
posed to  renew  the  national  covenant  of  Scotland,  and  the  Solemn 
League  and  Covenant  of  the  three  nations  ;  since  he  intimates,  in  his 
account  of  the  settlement  of  religion,  after  the  revolution  by  the  ac- 
cession of  William,  Prince  of  Orange,  to  the  British  throne,  that  it 
would  have  been  desirable,  that  the  obligation  of  these  covenants  had 
been  then  asserted,  and  that  they  had  been  then  renewed.  Nor  could 
Mr.  Willison  oppose  the  only  rational  way  of  renewing  these  cove- 
nants ;  that  is,  the  renewing  of  them  in  a  bond,  like  that  of  the  As- 
sociate Presbytery,  in  which  they  adapted  these  covenant  engage- 
ments to  the  present  circumstances  of  the  church  :  for  he  wishes  that 
they  had  been  renewed  at  the  revolution,  in  the  way  of  accommoda- 
tion to  the  circumstances  of  the  church  at  that  time."^  So  that  it 
does  not  appear  that  any  thing  was  meant  by  this  term  of  commun- 
ion, as  stated  by  the  Associate  Presbytery,  which  Mr.  Willison  could 
consistently  deny  to  be  commanded  duty.  Nor  could  there  be  any 
infringement  of  the  commmunion  of  saints  by  secluding  from  sealing 
ordinances  the  opposers,  the  slighters  and  contemners  of  this  com- 
manded duty.  By  doing  so,  instead  of  usurping  or  incroaching  upon 
the  Headship  of  the  King  of  Zion,  they  displayed  a  commendable 
zeal  against  such  as  were  openly  justifying  the  flagrant  instances  of 
usurpation  and  encroachment  on  his  Headship,  specified  in  the  pres- 
bytery's declinature.  Nor  was  their  zeal  carried  to  any  extreme. 
They  declared,  that  much  tenderness  is  to  be  used  with  the  weakest 
of  Christ's  flock,  who  are  lying  open  to  light,  and  desiring  to  come 
forward  to  the  discharge  of  their  duty.  Such  are  to  be  waited  for, 
till  they  willingly  offer  themselves.  None  are  to  be  excluded  from 
sealing  ordinances,  but  such  as  are  found,  after  deliberate  pains  have 
been  taken  for  their  reformation,  with  all  due  meekness  and  pa- 
tience, to  be  neglecters  of  this  important  moral  duty,  and  not  to 
be  seriously  in  the  use  of  means  for  light  and  satisfaction  on  this 
point. 

Alex.  The  Associate  Presbytery  seem  to  be  chargeable  in  this 
part  of  their  act  with  inconsistency.  They  call  the  swearing  of  their 
new  covenant  an  important  moral  duty ;  and  yet  they  pretend  to 
dispense  with  the  omission  of  it  in  some  of  their  people  for  a  time. 

RuF.  You  have  acknowledged  public  covenanting  to  be  both  a 
duty  and  a  privilege;  and  yet  you  have  relinquished  the  practice  of 
it,  and  have  given  up  the  prospect,  for  any  thing  that  appears,  of 

*  Imp.  Test,  page  59. 


378  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

ever  setting  about  it.  or  joining  in  it.  Is  not  this  far  more  inconsis- 
tent than  it  was  for  the  Associate  Presbytery  to  exercise  forbearance 
towards  some  of  their  people  who,  though  they  were  not  prepared  to 
enter  into  the  bond,  were  neither  opposing  this  important  moral  duty, 
nor  neglecting  the  due  use  of  means  for  obtaining  light  and  satisfac- 
tion about  it. 

Some  who  believe  public  covenanting  to  be  a  moral  duty,  and  to 
be  seasonable  at  present,  may  be  in  doubt  as  to  their  personal  fitness 
or  preparation  for  entering  into  the  bond.  This  seems  to  have  been 
chiefly  the  case  contemplated  by  the  presbytery  in  the  clause,  you  re- 
fer to,  in  their  act.  The  observation  of  due  order,  is  indeed  of  great 
importance  in  the  discharge  of  religious  duties.  For  the  neglect  of 
such  order  David  acknowledged,  that  the  Lord  had  made  a  breach 
upon  his  people,  in  the  death  of  Uzzah.  Those  in  Nehemiah's  time, 
who  joined  in  public  covenanting,  were  such  as  "  had  knowledge  and 
understanding  ;"  Nehem.  x.,  this  qualification  being  necessary  to  a 
swearing,  ''  The  Lord  liveth,  in  truth,  in  righteousness,  and  in  judg- 
ment." Generally  speaking  the  same  qualifications  are  necessary  to  a 
right  participation  of  the  Lord's  supper.  But  in  order  to  the  swear- 
ing and  subscribing  of  a  particular  bond  or  covenant  engagement, 
it  is  obvious,  that  persons  ought  to  have  a  distinct  understanding  of 
the  terms  in  which  it  is  expressed ;  and  of  every  particular  which  it 
specifies,  as  well  as  of  its  general  nature  and  design. 

Hence,  the  usual  practice  before  mentioned,  of  intimating  publicly 
the  design  of  covenanting  in  any  particular  congregation  a  consider- 
able time  before  its  transaction,  and  of  appointing  various  meetings 
of  session  for  conversing  with  and  receiving  such  as  offer  themselves 
to  join  in  that  work.  Thus  the  Associate  Presbytery  was  led  to  con- 
sider^ that  there  might  be  some  persons  in  their  congregations,  who 
would  decline  entering  into  the  bond,  on  a  particular  occasion,  for 
want  of  competent  information  ;  who  were  not  slighters,  or  contem- 
ners of  covenanting  ;  who  adhered  to  the  testimony  in  the  hands  of 
the  presbytery ;  and,  therefore,  were  not  to  be  secluded  from  sealing 
ordinances. 

Alex.  Mr.  Willison  observes  further,  that  the  Associate  Presby- 
tery call  their  new  oath  and  covenant,  not  a  term  but  the  term  of 
christian  communion  ;  as  if  it  were  the  only  qualification  for  admis- 
sion required,  and  as  if  it  answered  for  the  want  of  others.  By  this 
new  act,  let  a  man  be  ever  so  well  qualified,  according  to  the  terms 
which  Christ  hath  determined  ;  yet,  if  he  has  not  freedom  to  go  into 
this  term,  he  must  be  excluded  both  from  ministerial  and  christian 
communion. 

RuF.  Mr.  Willison  ought  to  have  said,  qualified  according  to  the 
other  terms  which  Christ  hath  determined  :  for  that  covenanting  is 
one  of  these  terms,  he  could  not  deny,  consistently  with  his  own  con- 
fession, that  it  is  one  of  the  things  which  Christ  hath  commanded 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  379 

us.  And  we  have  seen,  that  he  has  not  pointed  out  one  thing  taught 
or  inculcated  by  the  Associate  Presbytery,  that  is  really  different 
from  what  Christ  taught  and  inculcated.  And  would  not  our  Lord 
Jesus  and  his  apostles  have  refused  to  admit  persons  to  sealing  ordi- 
nances, who  were  open  opposers,  slighters  or  contemners  of  any  one 
thing  that  Christ  had  really  commanded,  however  well  qualified  they 
might  be  in  other  respects  ? 

With  regard  to  the  expression,  "the  term  of  communion,"  while  it 
is  very  unjustly  and  invidiously  represented  as  implying,  that  the 
terms  which  Christ  has  determined  were  not  so  much  observed  by 
these  ministers,  as  this  ;  it  is  but  fair  to  read  to  you  a  passage,  which 
contains  the  Associate  Presbytery's  reason  why  they  use  it  in  this 
act.-  "  This  determination,  the  presbytery  judge  agreeable  to  the 
word  of  God,  to  the  principles  of  this  church,  and  to  the  duty  of  the 
Lord's  remnant  in  these  lands.  They  consider  it  as  a  proper  stand 
against  the  grievous  and  growing  course  of  defection,  by  the  present 
generation  in  these  lands,  from  the  truths,  cause  and  institutions  of 
Christ,  revealed  in  his  holy  word,  and  maintained  in  our  reformation 
standards  ;  as  also,  against  the  dreadful  prevalence  of  latitudinarian 
principles,  for  uniting  persons  of  all  denominations  in  church  com- 
munion, to  the  overthrow  of  the  government  of  Christ's  house,  and 
to  the  manifest  prejudice  of  all  his  precious  truths.  It  is,  in  reality, 
a  proper  and  steadfast  adherence  to  the  unerring  rule  of  faith  and 
manners,  in  opposition  to  the  various  deviations  therefrom  in  our 
day,  that  is  by  the  said  act  made  the  term  of  communion  ;  and  con- 
sequently, no  other  term  of  communion  is  thereby  imposed,  than 
what  the  alone  Lord  of  the  conscience  has  prescribed :  while  the 
proposed  renovation  of  our  Solemn  Covenants  is  to  be  consider- 
ed, not  as  one  particular  duty  made  the  term  of  communion  exclu- 
sively of  or  preferably  to  others ;  but  as  the  general  and  seasona- 
ble form  of  avouching  all  the  principles  and  duties  of  our  holy  pro- 
fession."* 

Besides,  this  act  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  is  not  unprecedented 
in  the  Church  of  Scotland  :  it  is  similar  to  the  act  of  the  commission 
of  the  General  Assembly,  for  the  solemn  receiving,  swearing  and  sub- 
scribing the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant,  passed  at  Edinburgh,  in 
October  10th,  1643  :  "  Ordaining,  that  presbyteries  should  proceed 
with  the  censures  of  the  kirk  against  all  such  as  should  refuse  or  shift 
to  swear  and  subscribe  the  League  and  Covenant,  as  enemies  to  the 
preservation  and  propagation  of  religion."  Censure  is  here  de- 
nounced against  opposers  of  public  covenanting  in  much  stronger 
terms  than  those  used  by  the  Associate  Presbytery.  Mr.  Willison 
might  then  have  represented  this  commission  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly as  no   less  chargeable,  than  the  Associate  Presbytery,  with  the 

*  Display  of  the  Secession  Testimony,  vol.  1.  page  255. 


380  ALEXANDER  AND  EUFUS. 

crime  of  making  other  terms  of  church  communion,  than  those  made 
by  Christ,  and  of  infringing  the  communion  of  saints. 

§  56.  Alex.  It  is  granted,  on  all  hands,  that  public  covenanting 
is  an  occasional  duty  :  it  is  not  to  be  observed  at  stated  times  ;  but 
only  as  the  cases  and  circumstances,  to  which  it  has  a  special  rela- 
tion, occur.  Many  think  it  is  not  reasonable  at  present,  because  the 
church  is  not  persecuted  by  the  civil  magistrate. 

RuF.  The  time  of  the  church's  distress  is  a  proper  time  for  public 
covenanting.  But  the  church  may  be,  and  often  is,  in  great  distress 
from  prevailing  errors,  oflfences  and  reproaches,  when  there  is  no  per- 
secution by  the  civil  magistrate.  There  was  no  persecution  on  ac- 
count of  religion,  by  the  civil  governments  in  the  reigns  of  Asa,  Heze- 
kiah,  or  Josiah,  or  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah  ;  and  yet  these  were 
most  remarkable  times  of  public  covenanting.  If  the  time  of  perse- 
cution were  the  only  proper  season  of  public  covenanting,  we  might 
suppose,  that  there  would  have  been  an  example  of  it  in  the  long  per- 
secuting reign  of  Manasseh.  But  there  is  no  mention  of  it  in  the  ac- 
count of  his  reign. 

The  truth  is,  it  is  not  so  proper  to  use  it  as  a  mean  against  per- 
secution, or  against  the  danger  of  losing  religious  or  civil  liberty,  as 
it  is  to  use  it  against  a  remarkable  prevalence  of  error  and  other  cor- 
ruptions, affecting  the  church  as  a  spiritual  society.  It  is  more  proper 
to  use  it  in  the  latter  case ;  because  every  instance  of  public  cove- 
nanting recorded  in  scripture,  was  levelled  against  idolatry  and  other 
evils,  in  principle  and  practice,  affecting  the  church  as  a  spiritual  so- 
ciety ;  and  because  it  is  an  ordinance  of  religious  worship ;  in  the 
use  of  which  we  are  to  proceed  on  spiritual  and  evangelical  princi- 
ples. Whereas  a  bond,  in  which  people  should  engage  to  defend 
their  religious  and  civil  liberty,  ought  to  be  a  political  or  civil  one  ; 
in  which  peaceable  citizens  of  different  religious  sentiments  should  be 
admitted  to  join. 

Alex.  What  reason  have  Seceders  to  hold,  that  public  covenant- 
ing is  seasonable  at  present  ? 

RuF.  They  reckon,  that  the  errors  and  corruptions,  now  prevailing 
in  the  visible  church,  require  this  peculiar  solemnity  of  the  christian 
profession  ;  because  those  who  have  made  a  good  profession  of  ad- 
hering to  a  faithful  testimony  against  these  errors  and  corruptions 
are  now  under  peculiar  temptations  to  backsliding ;  and  therefore, 
they  are  called  to  join  in  public  covenanting,  as  a  proper  mean  of 
promoting  their  steadfastness.  Moses,  exhorting  the  people  of  Israel 
to  constancy  in  cleaving  the  truths  a-id  orli.'iauces  of  God,  en- 
joined them  to  remember  the  day,  on  which  they  stood  before  the 
Lord  in  Horeb  :  Deut.  iv.  9,  10.  Public  covenanting  is  seasonable, 
when  many  are  going  back  from  the  holy  profession  they  have  made ; 
as  it  is  of  the  same  nature  with  that  solemn  and  explicit  profession  of 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  which  he  called  the  twelve  apostles  to  make, 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  381 

when  many  of  his  disciples  went  back,  and  walked  no  more  with  him. 
*'  Then  said  Jesus  to  the  twelve,  Will  ye  also  go  away  ?"  "  Then 
Simon  Peter  answered  him.  Lord  to  whom  shall  we  go  ?''  "  Thou 
hast  the  words  of  eternal  life  ;  and  we  believe  and  are  sure,  that  thou 
art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God  :''  John  vi.  67,  68,  69. 

Public  covenanting  is  seasonable,  when  jealousies  and  misunder- 
standings prevail  among  professors ;  as  it  is  an  appointed  means  of 
removing  them,  and  of  promoting  mutual  confidence.  Public  cove- 
nanting is  similar  to  the  explanation,  which  the  tribes  of  Reuben  and 
Gad  and  the  half  tribe  of  Manasseh  gave  to  the  other  tribes,  on  the 
occasion  of  their  building  an  altar  at  Jordan  :  Josh.  xxii.  21 — 29. 

It  is  to  be  used  as  a  seasonable  means  for  the  conviction  of  the 
opposers  of  a  necessary  testimony,  exhibited  for  the  doctrine  and  or- 
der of  the  church  of  Christ.  After  we  have  dealt  with  these  oppo- 
sers, by  reasoning,  warning,  reproving,  we  are  also  to  use  this  fur- 
ther mean  of  declaring  our  joint  adherence  to  that  testimony  with  the 
solemnity  of  an  oath.  ?o  our  Lord  Jesus,  having  labored  to  reclaim 
the  Jews  from  their  unbelief,  by  his  doctrine,  his  miracles,  his  exam- 
ple, closed  his  ministry  with  a  sworn  declaration,  of  his  Divinity. 
"  The  high  priest  said  unto  him,  I  adjure  thee  by  the  living  God,  that 
thou  tell  us,  whether  thou  be  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  And  Je- 
sus said,  I  am  :"  Matth.  xxvi.  63,  64  ;  and  Mark  xiv.  61,  62. 

Again,  it  is  observed,  that  the  present  time  is  a  proper  season  for 
public  covenanting  ;  because  the  obligation  of  the  solemn  covenant 
engagements  of  our  forefathers  is,  in  a  great  measure,  forgotten  ;  and 
such  covenanting  is  a  proper  mean  of  reviving  the  sense  of  that  obli- 
gation ;  for  when  we  engage  in  public  covenanting,  to  walk  in  all 
the  commandments  and  ordinances  of  the  Lord,  we  acknowledge, 
not  only  the  primary  obligation  we  are  under  to  do  so  from  the  Di- 
vine law,  but  also,  the  secondary,  from  the  covenanting  of  our 
fathers. 

It  may  be  added,  that  Seceders  reckon  the  present  time  to  be  a 
proper  season  for  public  covenanting ;  because  it  is  a  time  in  which 
they  must  expect  to  suffer  reproach  for  a  faithful  adherence  to  the 
principles  of  our  covenanted  reformation.  This  cause  is  every  where 
treated  with  such  contempt,  as  must  be  distressing  to  those  who 
know  it  to  be  the  cause  of  God  and  truth.  They  experience  what  the 
Psalmist  felt,  when  he  said,  "  As  with  a  sword  in  my  bones,  mine  en- 
emies reproach  me  ;  while  they  say  daily  to  me,  Where  is  thy  God  ?" 
Psal.  xlii.  10.  It  is  a  time  of  distress,  on  account  of  God's  judg- 
ments. We  are  under  manifold  spiritual  judgments.  The  Lord  is 
hiding  his  face  and  withdrawing  from  us.  And  awful  temporal  judg- 
ments are  likely  to  follow.  Our  distress,  therefore,  may  induce  us, 
as  the  distress  of  the  Jews,  in  Nehemiah's  time,  induced  them  to  make 
a  sure  covenant.  We  should  essay  to  turn  to  the  Lord  in  the  way 
of  public  covenanting,  as  good  Josiah  did,  and  caused  the  people  of 


382  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

Judah  to  do,  when  lie  was  under  distressing  apprehensions  of  the 
great  wrath  of  God,  about  to  be  poured  out  upon  them ;  because 
their  fathers  had  not  kept  the  word  of  the  Lord  :  Nehem.  ix.  38  ; 
2  Chron.  xxxiv.  21,  31,  32. 

§  57.  Alex.  Since  the  obligation  of  covenant  engagements  is  dis- 
puted, might  not  covenanting  be  practised  by  a  particular  church, 
without  any  express  reference  to  the  covenant  engagements  which 
have  been  entered  into  by  their  fathers  ?  The  covenanting  of  the 
Israelites  is  constantly  said  to  be  the  making  of  a  covenant,  or  the 
entering  into  it  :  it  is  never  once  called  the  renewing  of  a  former 
covenant. 

RuF.  There  are  three  things  that  necessarily  belong  to  public  cove- 
nanting, namely,  the  acknowledgement  which  the  covenanters  make 
of  God's  relation  to  them  as  their  God,  their  confession  of  sin,  and 
their  engagement  to  duties.  In  each  of  these  particulars  as  they  are 
found  in  the  several  instances  of  public  covenanting,  recorded  in  the 
history  of  Israel,  after  their  covenanting  at  Horeb,  we  may  observe  a 
reference  to  former  covenant  engagements.  First,  the  covenant  they 
entered  into  was  called  the  covenant  of  God,  the  God  of  their  fathers, 
2  Chron.  xxxiv.  32  ;  and  they  entered  into  covenant  with  the  Lord, 
as  the  God  of  Israel,  2  Chron.  xxix.  10 ;  as  having  been  long  before 
known  to  be  their  God,  and  acknowledged  as  such,  in  the  former  cov- 
enant transactions  of  their  fathers,  in  which  they  avouched  the  Lord 
to  be  their  God,  and  themselves  to  be  his  people,  Deut.  xxvi.  17  ; 
2  Chron.  xv.  12.  Second,  they  confessed  their  sins,  as  breaches  of 
their  former  covenant  engagements.  When  Ezra  directs  the  people 
to  make  a  covenant  with  their  God,  he  exhorts  them  ''  to  make  con- 
fession to  him,  as  the  Lord  God  of  their  fathers,''  Ezra  x.  11.  A^e 
have  rebelled,  say  they,  referring  to  the  allegiance  formerly  sworn  to 
God  ;  ''  Why  do  we  deal  treacherously,  by  profaning  the  covenant  of 
our  fathers  ?"  Dan.  ix.  5  ;  Mai.  ii.  10.  Third,  the  duties  they  en- 
gaged to,  were  considered  as  incumbent  on  them,  not  only  by  the 
primary  obligation  of  God's  law,  but  also,  by  the  secondary  obliga- 
tion of  their  former  covenant  engagements.  So,  in  the  account  of  the 
covenanting  in  Josiah's  reign,  it  is  said  of  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusa- 
lem, that  "the^  did  according  to  the  covenant  of  God,  the  God  of 
their  fathers  :"  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  32  ;  that  is  according  to  the  covenant 
into  which  their  fathers  entered  :  and  what  they  did  according  to  that 
covenant,  was  undoubtedly  what  they  had  engaged  to  do  in  their  own 
act  of  covenanting.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  the  repeated  cove- 
nanting of  the  Jews,  as  it  included  these  three  particulars,  was  a  real 
renewing  of  their  former  solemn  covenant  engagements  :  and  hence 
we  justly  call  it  so  ;  as  our  translators  have  not  scrupled  to  do  so  in 
the  contents  of  some  chapters,  Joshua  xxiv\  and  2  Chron.  xxxiv;  and 
on  supposition,  that  a  particular  church  is  under  the  obligation  of 
covenant  engagements  that  have  been  formerly  entered  into,  it  is  the 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  383 

indispensable  duty  of  that  church,  to  recognise  in  her  public  cove- 
nanting, her  former  covenant  engagements  :  the  Lord  reproves  her 
sin;  and  therefore,  she  ought  to  confess  it,  not  only  as  a  breach  of  his 
law,  but  also,  as  a  breach  of  covenant :  the  Lord  requires  the  prac- 
tice of  duty  ;  and  therefore,  the  church  ought  to  promise  and  engage 
to  practice  it,  not  only  as  what  his  law  requires,  but  as  what  his 
church  and  people  have  promised  to  him.  Our  public  covenanting 
would  not  be  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God,  if  it  did  not  include  an 
engagement  to  make  conscience  of  walking  answerably  to  the  obli- 
gation of  our  former  profession  of  being  the  Lord's,  and  of  our  for- 
mer engagements  to  serve  him.  Hence  it  cannot  well  be  denied,  that 
there  is  a  real  impiety  in  attempting  to  exclude  from  the  public  cove- 
nanting of  a  particular  church,  a  reference  to  the  obligation  of  the 
covenant  engagements  she  has  formerly  come  under. 

Alex.  Seceders,  in  their  public  covenanting,  engage  to  bear  wit- 
ness against  the  errors  and  corruptions  of  others.  But  the  matter  of 
Israel's  covenant,  was  only  a  reformation  from  their  own  sins,  and  the 
future  practice  of  their  own  duty. 

RuF.  It  is  true,  that  much  of  the  Associate  Presbytery's  acknow- 
ledgment of  sins  is  taken  up  with  an  enumeration  of  public  sins,  after 
the  example  of  the  acknowledgment  of  sins  in  the  ninth  chapter  of 
Nehemiah.  The  very  design  of  public  covenanting  is,  that  the  cove- 
nanters may  appear  on  the  Lord's  side,  against  all  the  public  evils  of 
those  among  whom  they  live.  It  is  a  way  in  which  God  has  appointed 
such  as  desire  to  be  found  faithful  in  their  generation,  to  make  a  stand 
against  prevailing  corruption,  and  to  promote  reformation  among 
others,  as  well  as  among  themselves.  Public  covenanting,  without 
reference  to  public  sins,  and  to  public  and  general  reformation,  is 
therefore  a  contradiction  in  terms.  The  people  of  Israel,  in  their 
covenanting,  appeared  as  witnesses  for  God,  not  only  against  corrup- 
tions among  themselves,  but  also,  against  the  idolatry  of  the  na- 
tions around  them.  They  appeared  as  a  people,  redeemed  from  the 
nations,  d^nd  their  gods ;  as  a  people,  of  whom  the  Lord  said,  ''  Ye 
are  my  witnesses,  that  I  am  GodJ;"  2  Sam.  vii.  23  ;  Isai.  xliii.  12. 

The  public  covenanting  of  those,  who  are  in  a  state  of  secession 
from  some  particular  church  or  churches  on  account  of  obstinacy  in 
corruption,  would  be  absurd  and  unscriptural.  if  it  were  without  a,ny 
acknowledgment  of  that  corruption,  or  without  any  engagement  to 
contend  and  testify  against  it  For  it  would  be  a  criminal  partiality 
indeed,  in  a  people's  confession  of  sins  and  engagement  against  them, 
as  grounds  of  God's  controversy  with  the  present  generation,  to  omit 
those  corruptions  which  they  have  judged  to  be  so  great,  as  to  war- 
rant their  separate  communion.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  certain,  that 
people's  engagement  to  forsake  their  own  sins,  and  to  practice  their 
own  duties,  is  essential  to  such  covenanting  as  is  according  to  the 
word  of  God     But  no  candid  reader  of  the  Associate  Presbytery's 


384  ALEXANDER  AND   RUFUS. 

acknowledgment  of  sins  and  engagement  to  duties,  will  charge  them 
with  any  wilful  omission  on  this  head. 

§  58.  Alex.  I  have  only  one  thing  more  to  offer,  before  we  con- 
clude this  conversation ;  which  is.  that  people  are  too  apt  to  think,  as 
Mr.  Marshal,  in  his  Gospel  Mystery  of  Sanctification,  observes,  that 
they  will  bring  themselves  to  good  by  vows  and  promises,  as  if  the 
strength  of  their  own  law  could  do  it,  when  the  strength  of  God's  law 
doth  it  not.  Was  there  no  ground  to  suspect  that  the  Associate  Pres- 
bytery, by  insisting  so  much  on  public  covenanting,  might  encourage 
|>€ople  to  entertain  such  a  vain  and  delusive  imagination? 

RuF.  In  the  passage,  which  you  have  quoted  from  Mr.  Marshal's 
excellent  treatise,  he  warns  us  not  to  trust  in  the  act  of  vowing,  as  if 
it  had,  in  itself,  any  power  of  producing  in  us  what  is  spiritually  good  ; 
or  any  worth,  on  account  of  which  we  have  ground  to  expect  supplies 
of  grace  from  God.  But  this  caution  is  not  more  necessary  in  vow- 
ing to  God,  than  in  the  use  of  other  means  ;  for  we  are  not  to  rest  on 
means,  as  if  they,  of  themselves,  could  afford  us  any  help  or  strength ; 
but  we  are  to  rest  only  on  God,  who  appointed  us  to  use  them  ;  ex- 
pecting the  spiritual  benefit  from  himself  alone,  as  the  God  of  all 
grace,  for  the  sake  of  the  righteousness  of  Jesus  Christ. 

The  Associate  Presbytery  was  remarkably  careful  to  caution  peo- 
ple against  the  abuse  of  vows  in  a  self-righteous  way.  To  this  pur- 
pose, I  shall  read  a  passage  concerning  personal  covenanting,  out  of 
a  treatise  written  by  one  of  the  members  of  this  presbytery.  "  If  per- 
sonal covenanting,"  says  he,  "be  set  about,  in  the  case  of  a  troubled 
conscience,  as  a  mean  of  getting  it  pacified,  under  an  apprehension  of 
peace  and  acceptance  with  God — yea,  as  a  mean  of  obtaining  a  sav- 
ing interest  in  Christ :  let  this  be  done  in  ever  so  evangelic  like  a 
manner,  it  is  but  some  sort  of  an  attempt  to  repair  the  breach  of  the 
covenant  of  works  ;  a  going  about,  however  speciously,  to  establish 
the  person's  own  righteousness,  a  seeking  righteousness,  as.  it  were, 
by  the  works  of  the  law.  For  still,  the  person  will  have  some  res- 
pect to  his  own  covenant,  and  to  his  felt  attainment,  as  to  proper  ex- 
ercise in  mating  it ;  as  the  immediate  ground  of  that  settlement, 
which  his  souljs  brought  into,  about  his  saving  interest  in  God's  cov- 
enant of  grace.  Then  only  is  personal  covenanting  rightly  managed, 
when  a  person  is  thereby  devoting  himself  to  the  Lord  as  his  God ; 
with  his  conscience  purged  from  guilt,  and  specified  by  faith's  appli- 
cation of  the  blood  of  Christ ;  his  soul  being  at  rest  in  God,  accord- 
ing to  the  new  covenant,  about  all  his  spiritual  and  everlasting  con- 
cerns ;  and  his  heart  under  a  sweet  constraint  of  Christ's  believed 
love  to  him  ;  with  a  fire  of  love  and  gratitude  in  his  heart  to  Christ, 
taking  effect  in  a  gracious  engagement  for  living  unto  him.  Personal 
covenanting  may,  perhaps,  be  reduced  to  pourings  out  of  the  heart 
before  God  in  prayer."* 

*  Mr.  Gib's  Sacred  Contemplations,  pages  91,  93. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  385 

What  the  Associate  Presbytery  have  stated,  concerning  the  con- 
nection between  God's  covenant  of  grace  and  our  covenant  of  duties, 
and  concerning  the  influence  which  the  one  has  on  the  other,  is  highly 
proper  for  guarding  people  against  a  legal  manner  of  covenanting. 
Allow  me  to  read  some  passages  of  it.  "The  covenant  of  grace," 
say  they,  "  which  is  made  with  and  stands  fast  in  Christ  our  glorious 
Head,  lays  us  under  much  further  obligation  to  duty  and  service,  than 
the  covenant  of  works,  even  while  it  stood  in  the  first  Adam.  And 
our  obligation  to  vow  and  pay  our  vows,  to  covenant  and  perform  or 
keep  our  covenants  of  duty  and  service  to  God  in  Christ,  is  yet  more 
strengthened  and  furthered,  by  our  being  under  a  fuller  and  clearer 
dispensation  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  than  that  which  those  who  lived 
under  the  Old  Testament  had. " 

''  The  influence,  which  the  covenant  of  grace  has  upon  our  cove- 
nants of  duty,  appears  especially  by  considering  the  promise  of  the 
former.  The  promise  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  as  it  is  set  forth,  to 
us  in  the  gospel,  is  a  promise  of  all  grace,  habitual  and  actual ;  of 
grace  for  performing  every  duty  required  in  the  precept  of  the  law  ; 
a  promise  of  the  Spirit,  in  the  plentiful  effusion  thereof,  to  make  us 
fruitful  in  holiness  ;  a  promise  of  strength  to  walk  and  run  in  the 
way  of  the  Lord ;  a  pramise  of  recovery,  in  the  case  of  failures  and 
decays  ;  and  a  promise  of  perseverance  unto  the  end,  in  a  course  of 
gospel  obedience.  And  as  we  cannot  set  about  vowing  or  resolv- 
ing to  perform  any  duty  commanded  in  the  law,  without  the  grace 
promised  in  the  gospel  ;  so  this  grace  is  to  be  apprehended  and  de- 
pended on,  as  the  great  encouragement  to  vow  and  resolve  upon 
obedience." 

"  The  influence,  which  the  covenant  of  grace  has  on  our  covenant 
of  duty,  is  to  be  considered  with  respect  to  the  authority  enjoining 
obedience,  and  calling  us  to  devote  ourselves  and  our  service  to  the 
Lord.  Though  this  authority  is  originally  the  same  that  enjoined 
obedience  upon  man  in  the  first  covenant ;  yet  it  appears  to  us  more 
amiable,  by  its  being  the  authority  of  God  in  Christ,  reconciling  the 
world  to  himself.  While  God  is  related  to  us  as  our  God  and  Re- 
deemer, we  are  laid  under  the  strongest  obligations  to  duty  and 
obedience,  according  to  the  import  of  the  preface  to  the  ten  com- 
mandments. " 

"  In  fine,  the  influence,  which  the  covenant  of  grace  has  on  our  cov- 
enant of  duty,  is  to  be  considered  with  respect  to  the  furniture  we 
have  in  our  new  covenant  Head,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Having  in 
hiiu  righteousness  for  acceptance,  and  strength  for  assistance  in  every 
duty,  and  particularly  in  vowing  obedience  to  him  ;  Isai.  xliv.  3,  4, 
5 ;  the  Spirit  of  grace  being  above  measure  in  our  glorious  Head, 
for  our  use  and  behoof;  we  are  called  to  be  strong  in  the  grace  that 
is  in  Christ  Jesus,  for  by  him  strengthening  us,  we  can  do  all  things  : 
2  Tim.  ii.  1 ;  Philip,  iv.  13.  This  furniture  we  have  always  in  him, 
25 


386  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

as  our  new  covenant  Head ;  and  we  have  always  access  to  the  bene- 
fit of  it,  by  faith  ;  the  language  of  which  is,  '  Surely,  in  the  Lord, 
have  I  righteousness  and  strength  :'  Isai.  xlv.  24.  And  as,  without 
this  faith,  it  is  impossible  to  please  God,  by  any  doing  or  service  ;  so, 
by  this  faith,  we  are  in  case  to  please  God,  and  serve  him  spiritually 
and  acceptably.  There  is  no  comparison  between  the  furniture  we 
once  had,  in  the  first  Adam,  and  this  furniture  we  have  in  Christ ; 
which  is  no  less  than  all  the  fullness  of  the  Godhead,  dwelling  in  him  ; 
so  as  we  also  are  complete  in  him  ;  according  to  his  promise,  '  My 
grace  is  sufficient  for  thee  ;  for  my  strength  is  made  perfect  in  weak- 
ness :'  John  i.  16  ;  1  Corinth,  xii.  9.  As,  therefore,  we  are  called  to 
work  out  our  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling  ;  because  it  is  God 
who  worketh  in  us,  both  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure  ;  and 
as  we  are  to  sanctify  ourselves,  because  he  is  the  Lord  who  sanctifies 
us  :  Philip,  ii.  12,  13  ;  Levit.  xx.  7,  8.  So  we  may  set  about  the 
great  work  of  covenanting  to  serve  and  obey  him,  with  humble  confi- 
dence, in  the  faith  of  this  new  covenant  furniture,  which  we  have  in 
Jesus  Christ ;  saying,  '  We  will  go  in  the  strength  of  the  Lord  God  : 
— We  will  make  mention  of  thy  righteousness,  even  of  thine  only."' 
Psal.  Ixxi.  16. 


DIALOGUE  Y. 

The  difference  between  the  Seceders  and  those  called  the  Reformed  Body,  on  the 
head  of  the  civil  magistrate — Arguments  used  by  the  Associate  Presbytery, 
in  support  of  their  doctrine  on  this  head — Pleas  of  the  Reformed  Body  for 
their  opposite  opinion — The  practise  of  the  Reformed  Body,  in  taking  bene- 
fit of  the  present  government  and  paying  taxes  to  it,  inconsistent  with  their 
professed  opinion  concerning  the  government— The  principles  of  Seceders 
greatly  misrepresented  in  a  late  publication  of  that  body — The  occasion  of  the 
controversy  about  the  religious  clause  of  some  burgess  oaths — The  decision 
of  the  Synod  concerning  that  clause— The  justice  of  that  decision— That  de- 
cision, in  the  circumstances  of  the  Synod  at  that  time,  necessary— Of  the  ques- 
tion, whether  this  decision  should  be  a  term  of  communion,  and  of  the  man- 
ner in  which  that  question  was  carried  in  the  affirmative — The  majority  of  the 
acting  members  of  the  Synod,  at  the  rupture,  shown  to  have  been  on  the  side 
of  the  decision— Objections  against  the  conduct  of  the  defenders  of  the  said 
decision,  considered — Thoughts  on  the  censures  passed  on  the  opposers  of 
the  said  decision — The  consequences  of  this  controversy. 

One  day,  as  Alexander  and  Rufus  were  taking  a  walk  near  a  flock 
of  sheep,  they  observed  two  rams  butting  one  another  with  apparent 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  387 

fierceness.  See,  said  Alexander,  the  hostility  between  these  animals, 
which  are  naturally  mild  and  harmless.  This  occurrence  puts  me  in 
mind  of  the  animosities  of  christians  ;  who,  as  they  profess  to  be 
Christ's  sheep,  ought  to  be  meek  and  lowly  in  heart,  and  in  all  their 
deportment.  How  deplorable  is  it,  that  religion,  which  is  designed 
to  promote  mutual  love,  should  be  an  occasion  of  variance  and  conten- 
tion !  In  this  respect,  the  Associate  Presbytery  and  their  followers 
seem  to  be  even  more  blameable  than  christians  of  ether  denomina- 
tions. I  can  scarcely  perceive  a  shade  of  difference  between  their 
profession  and  that  of  the  people  who,  in  this  country,  are  called  Cov- 
enanters ;  and  yet,  I  am  told,  some  of  the  opinions  of  these  people 
were  opposed  by  the  Associate  Presbytery. 

RuF.  With  regard  to  your  general  remark  about  the  disputes  among 
christians,  I  still  think,  as  I  observed  before,  that  great  injustice  may 
be  done  to  the  parties  in  a  religious  controversy,  by  a  slight  and  care- 
less notice  of  them,  as  if  both  were  alike  blameable.  This  ought  not 
to  be  admitted  in  any  particular  case,  without  accurate  examination. 
Impartial  inquiry  will  almost  always  discover  more  prejudice,  more 
misrepresentation,  more  evasion,  more  abuse  of  words  on  one  side, 
than  on  the  other.  The  attempt  to  maintain  and  propagate  tenets 
contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  and  to  the  scriptural  profession  of  his 
church,  is  undoubtedly  the  work  of  Satan,  for  seducing  the  people  of 
God,  and  for  causing  divisions  and  otfences.  Hence,  however  much 
we  ought  to  lament  the  religious  disputes  among  christians,  we  ought 
still  more  to  lament  the  obstinate  attachment  to  error  and  corruption, 
which  began,  and  which  continues  such  disputes.  The  sowers  of 
error,  are  the  sowers  of  discord  among  brethren.  Hence,  it  is  an  im- 
portant duty  of  church  members,  and  especially  of  ministers,  to  make 
a  firm  and  undaunted  opposition  to  the  propagation  of  error.  It  is 
not  uncommon,  indeed,  to  hear  what  is  spoken  or  written  for  the  re- 
futiUion  of  error  represented  as  contemptiblCj  and  reproached  as  the 
turbulent  effusion  of  anger  ;  as  nothing  better,  if  not  worse,  than  the 
most  wretched  sophistry,  employed  on  the  contrary  side.  Hence,  in 
the  present  day,  many  seem  to  be  persuaded,  that  in  disputes  con- 
cerning the  doctrines  of  the  christian  religion,  speaking  the  truth  is 
as  contrary  to  christian  love  and  amity,  as  speaking  falsehood.  But 
the  apostle  Paul  intimates  the  absurdity  of  such  a  supposition, 
when  he  asks  the  Galatians,  ''  Am  I  become  your  enemy,  because 
I  tell  you  the  truth?"  This  interrogation  implies  a  strong  affirma- 
tion to  this  purpose  :  That  no  minister  or  other  church  member  ought 
to  be  accounted  malevolent  or  unfriendly  to  any,  because  he  de- 
clares the  truths  of  God's  word,  states  the  reasons  by  which  they  are 
established,  and  refutes  contrary  opinions.  The  Associate  Presby- 
tery endeavored  to  do  so,  in  the  declaration  they  gave  of  their  princi- 
ples. The  consequence  was,  that  some  v/ere  offended  at  one  part 
of  that  declaration  j  and  others  at  aaother  part  of  it.     But  it  may  be 


388  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

justly  asked,  ought  the  members  of  that  presbytery  to  have  been 
accounted  enemies  to  any,  because  they  told  them  the  truth  ?  By 
no  means. 

§  59.  They  who,  you  say,  are  called  in  this  country  Covenanters, 
have  assumed  the  title  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church. 
They  are  considered  as  adhering  to  the  way  of  the  Old  Dissenters 
in  Scotland,  who,  after  the  revolution  in  the  year  1688,  disowned  the 
British  government,  and  refused  subjection  to  it,  even  in  its  lawful 
commands.*  The  principle  on  which  this  refusal  proceeded  was,  that 
a  due  measure  of  scriptural  qualification  is  necessary  to  the  being  of 
a  lawful  magistrate.  In  a  new  statement  of  their  principles,  f  we 
have  this  proposition  :  "  That,  in  nations  in  which  the  light  of  the 
gospel  has  been  generally  diffused,  the  infidelity  of  the  rulers,  though 
set  up  and  maintained  as  such  by  the  will  of  the  body  politic  to  which 
they  belong,  makes  void  their  authority.''  It  may  be  observed,  that 
this  proposition,  though  it  is  agreeable  to  the  scheme  of  these  peo- 
ple, does  not  express  it  adequately  ;  for  it  is  obvious,  that  infidelity, 
as  it  means  a  professed  rejection  of  Christianity,  is  only  one  of  the 
many  evils,  which,  according  to  their  scheme,  make  void  the  authori- 
ty of  civil  rulers. 

Alex.  How  do  the  Associate  Presbytery  state  their  doctrine  on 
this  head. 

RuF.  They  grant,  that  we  ought  not  to  own  the  authority  of  mere 
usurpers  or  habitual  tyrants,  even  in  their  lawful  commands.  Mere 
usurpers  can  have  no  lawful  authority  :  but  if  any  such  acquire  the 
consent  of  the  people,  whether  expressed  or  tacit,  as  was  the  case  of 
Cagsar  with  the  Jewish  people  ;  they  then  cease  to  be  mere  usurpers ; 
and  are  invested  with  authority,  to  which  God  commands  subjection 
and  obedience  in  matters  lawful.  With  regard  to  a  habitual  tyrant, 
or  one  who  ceases,  to  rule  by  just  laws,  and  who  is  engaged  in  war 
against  the  lives,  or  in  overthrowing  the  civil  and  religious  liberties 
of  the  nation  as  was  the  case  in  Scotland  before  the  Revolution )  it 
cannot  be  supposed,  that  such  a  person  has  any  real  consent  of  the 
nation  to  rule,  or  any  lawful  authority.  However  quietly  one  may 
be  obliged  to  live  under  mere  usurpers  or  habitual  tyrants ;  yet  there 
should  be  no  acknowledgment  of  their  authority,  as  binding  upon  the 
conscience.  The  party,  with  whom  the  Associate  Presbytery  dealt, 
did  not  charge  the  British  government,  nor  do  their  followers  in  this 
country  charge  the  government  of  the  United  States,  with  usurpation 

*  This  is  carefully  to  be  attended  to,  as  the  precise  point  in  dispute  between  the 
Seceders  and  those  called  Covenanters,  what  constitutes  the  hemg  of  a  magistrate, 
U)  whom  obedience  or  subjection  in  his  lawful  commands  is  due  ?  The  necessi- 
ty of  an  eminent  measure  of  Scriptural  qualifications  to  his  well-being^  is  not  dis- 
puted. 

t  Entitled,  Reformation  Principles,  exhibited  on  the  head  of  the  civil  magistrate. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  389 

or  habitual  tyranny  ;  and  therefore,  these  cases  do  not  belong  to  the 
matter  in  question. 

It  is  further  to  be  observed,  that  the  Associate  Presbytery  always 
suppose  the  person,  whom  they  consider  as  a  lawful  magistrate,  to  be 
in  the  actual  possession  of  those  necessary  and  natural  abilities  which 
are  common  among  men ;  and  to  have  some  competent  measure  of 
those  moral  and  acquired  qualifications  which  they  ought  to  have  ; 
and  to  be  performing  those  duties,  which  are  incumbent  on  them,  at 
least,  in  some  useful  and  continued  degree  :  all  this  being  implied  in 
the  essential  notion  of  magistrates,  in  the  language  of  the  scripture, 
and  of  every  people.  The  principle  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  con- 
cerning subjection  and  obedience  to  the  civil  magistrate,  is  consistent 
with  the  whole  duty  of  his  office,  according  to  the  word  of  God  and 
the  covenants.  National  and  Solemn  League  ;  with  a  testimony  against 
whatever  is  defective  or  corrupt  in  the  civil  constitution  or  adminis- 
tration ;  and  wath  the  lawful  endeavors  of  the  people,  in  their  sev- 
eral capacities,  to  have  magistrates  reformed  according  to  the  word 
of  God.  It  is  also  consistent  with  our  refusing  to  obey  the  unlawful 
commands  of  rulers ;  and  with  any  self-defence  that  is  necessary, 
lawful  and  expedient,  according  to  the  word  of  God  and  right  reas- 
on ;  such  as  our  worthy  ancestors  attempted  at  Bothwell  and  ir'ent- 
land.  "  There  is  no  manner  of  inconsistency,"  says  the  presbyte- 
ry, "  between  people's  standing  on  their  defence^  against  particular 
injuries  offered  by  a  magistrate,  and  their  acknowledging  his  author- 
ity in  lawful  commands."  Hampden  refused  to  pay  the  tax  called 
ship-money,  while  he  owned  Charles  the  First  to  be  his  lawful  sov- 
ereign. 

In  short,  the  Associate  Presbytery  maintain,  that  as  there  is  a  pre- 
cept in  the  law  of  God,  authorising  people  to  choose  magistrates  or 
rulers  over  them  ;  so,  wherever  they  are  led,  in  the  course  of  Provi- 
dence, to  invest  a  person  with  a  right  to  rule  over  them,  that  person, 
while  he  continues  to  be  countenanced  by  the  majority  of  a  nation, 
and  while  his  administration  is  such  as  has  now  been  described,  is  not 
only  a  providential,  but  also  a  preceptive  magistrate  ;  or  one  invest- 
ed with  the  office  of  ruling,  in  that  very  way  which  the  precept,  or 
God,  in  the  precept,  enjoins.  Hence,  they  rejected  the  opinion  ex- 
pressed in  these  words  of  the  Testimony  of  the  Reformed  Presbytery, 
"  That  a  due  measure  of  those  qualiOcations  which  God  requires  in 
his  word,  is  essentially  necessary  to  the  constitution  of  lawful  author- 
ity over  a  christian  people."*  If  by  a  due  measure  of  scriptural 
qualifications,  were  meant  such  conformity  to  the  precepts  of  scrip- 
ture, as  is  attainable  in  the  present  state  ;  it  is  granted,  that  in  this 
sense,  it  is  the  duty  of  persons  of  every  description,  rulers  and  ruled, 
to  endeavor  to  attain  a  due  measure  of  such  qualifications.     And  no 

*  Testimony  of  the  Reformed  Presbytery,  page  192. 


390  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

deviation  from  this  rule,  with  which  any  civil  government  or  its  offi- 
cers are  justly  chargeable,  is  to  be  defended.  But  the  Reformed 
Presbytery  held,  that  a  due  measure  of  scriptural  qualifications  is  so 
essential  to  the  being  of  a  magistrate  among  a  christian  people,  that 
no  one  who  wants  that  due  measure  is  to  be  owned  as  a  lawful 
magistrate,  or  to  be  submitted  to  in  his  lawful  commands,  for  con- 
science sake.  This  is  the  tenet  which  the  Associate  Presbytery  have 
opposed. 

§  60.  Alex.  How  have  they  opposed  it  ? 

RuF.  They  have  shown,  that  magistracy,  being  an  ordinance  of 
the  law  of  nature,  what  is  essential  to  its  being,  or  what  constitutes  a 
lawful  magistrate,  is  the  same  among  heathens  and  christians.  The 
moral  law,  so  far  as  it  is  revealed  by  the  light  of  nature,  is  the  same 
law  which  is  revealed  more  perfectly  in  the  scripture  ;  and  therefore, 
whatever  truly  constitutes  one  a  magistrate  according  to  that  law,  as 
made  known  to  heathens,  must  constitute  him  a  magistrate  according 
to  the  same  law,  as  made  known  to  christians.* 

They  have  shown,  that  if  infidelity  or  the  want  of  a  due  measure 
of  scriptural  qualifications  be  allowed  to  be  sufficient  to  annul  the 
relation  between  a  magistrate  and  his  people  ;  then,  it  will  be  found 
sufficient  to  annul  other  relations  founded  in  the  law  of  nature,  such 
as  those  between  a  husband  and  his  wife,  between  a  parent  and  his 
children,  between  a  master  and  his  servant.  By  this  scheme  persons 
may  be  led  to  refuse  to  own  their  relations  on  this  pretence,  that  they 
want  a  due  measure  of  scriptural  qualifications ;  and  servants  may 
decline  to  obey  their  froward  masters  ;  though  the  Spirit  of  God 
says,  "  Servants  be  subject  to  your  masters  with  all  fear,  not  only  to 
the  good  and  gentle ;  but  also  to  the  froward,"  1  Pet.  ii.  18. 

'J  hey  have  shown,  that  the  opinion  in  question  is  contrary  to  the 
precepts  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  To  this  purpose  they  quote  Prov. 
xxiv.  21,  "  My  son,  fear  thou  the  Lord  and  the  king,  and  meddle  not 
with  them  that  are  given  to  change."  As  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  in 
tlie  style  of  the  scripture,  signifies  not  only  an  inward  disposition  of 
mind,  but  all  those  external  duties  which  we  owe  to  him ;  so  the  fear 
of  kings  or  magistrates  must  also  denote  all  those  external  duties 
which  we  owe  to  them  ;  such  as  owning  their  authority  and  paying 
taxes.  What  are  the  kings,  whom  God's  people  are  thus  commanded 
to  fear  ?  Certainly  any  whom  the  body  of  the  nation  acknowledge 
to  be  their  rulers  or  magistrates,  and  while  they  are  so  acknowledged. 

_  *  Christianity,  says  Mr.  Rutherford,  does  not  mole  any  one  a  king  over  chris- 
tians :  for  thfn  ne  would  not  be  a  king  over  christians,  so  long  as  he  wanted 
Christianity  ;  which  is  folse  ;  for  the  primitive  christians  acknowledged  the  heath- 
en etniterors.  The  Jews  were  to  obey  Nebuchadnezzar  and  other  heathen  kings; 
Paul  exhorts  christians  to  be  subject  to  ever>  power,  Rom.  xivi.  1,  2 — 1  Tim.  ii. 
1,  2,  3.  We  abhor  the  popish  dethroning  of  kings,  when  they  turn  heretics,  and 
leave  off  being  members  of  the  christian  church. 

Due  Right  of  Presbytery ^  page  393. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  391 

For,  with  regard  to  the  Jews,  it  cannot  be  denied,  that  the  authority 
of  their  wicked  kings,  while  the  body  of  the  nation  were  really  con- 
senting thereto,  continued  valid  ]  so  that  particular  subjects  were 
bound  in  conscience  to  submit  to  their  lawful  commands.  Their  civil 
authority,  having  its  rise  in  the  consent  of  the  people,  according  to 
the  indispensable  law  of  nature,  was  not  subverted  by  the  apostacy 
of  the  people  from  the  true  religion,  or  by  the  deficiency  of  the  kings 
themselves  with  regard  to  scriptural  qualifications.  On  the  same 
principle,  the  Jewish  people  were  bound  to  fear  those  whom  other 
kingdoms  acknowledged  as  kings,  when  sojourning  in  their  domin- 
ions. He  who  is  Mediator,  though  not  as  Mediator,  but  as  God, 
says  of  himself ;  ^'  By  me  kings  reign,  and  princes  decree  justice  even 
all  the  judges  of  the  earth,"  Prov.  viii.  15,  16.  These  words  declare 
the  legitimacy  as  well  as  the  existence  of  the  office  and  authority  of 
kings  and  judges,  not  only  in  Israel,  but  in  the  nations  of  the  world 
in  general.  Hence  it  appears,  that  the  Jews  were  equally  obliged, 
by  this  precept,  viz.,  "  Fear  the  Lord  and  the  King,''  when  sojourning 
in  other  kingdoms,  to  fear  whatever  kings  were  acknowledged  as 
such  by  these  other  kingdoms.  Accordingly,  long  afterward,  this 
precept  was  repeated,  as  applicable  to  their  case,  while  they  were 
scattered  through  the  countries  of  such  kings,  1  Pet.  ii.  17. 

In  short,  this  text  plainly  teaches,  that  the  Lord's  people  ought  to 
fear  all  kings,  who  are  acknowledged  as  such  by  the  several  king- 
doms to  which  they  belong ;  as  there  is  no  exception  made  here,  or 
in  any  other  place  of  scripture.  All  the  duty  of  persons  under  the 
worst  of  these  kings  or  rulers  is  sufficiently  comprehended  in  this 
command.  For  it  binds  persons  to  acknowledge  the  rulers  in  any 
lawful  exercise  of  their  authority,  while  it  is  acknowledged  by  their 
people  ;  and,  at  the  same  time,  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  to  testify  and 
contend  against  their  corruptions,  and  to  endeavor  the  reformation  of 
the  government.  So  that  by  the  subjection  here  commanded,  persons 
can  never  be  involved  in  the  public  corruptions. 

Another  precept,  which  the  Associate  Presbytery  consider  as  con- 
trary to  the  opinion  in  question,  is,  Ecclesiastes  x.  4,  ''  If  the  Spirit 
of  the  ruler  rise  up  against  thee,  leave  not  thy  place,  for  yielding 
pacifieth  great  offences."  Here  we  are  plainly  taught,  that  upon  the 
supposition  that  a  ruler  is  so  corrupt  as,  without  any  just  cause,  to 
discountenance,  discourage  or  distress  the  subject,  upon  personal  or 
religious  accounts,  the  subject  must  not  repay  enl  for  evil ;  but,  while 
he  is  bound  to  use  lawful  endeavors  for  self-preservation,  for  vindi- 
cating his  innocency  and  the  cause  for  which  he  suffers;  and  for  hav- 
ing government  reformed  ;  he  must,  at  the  same  time,  continue  in 
subjection  and  obedience  to  the  ruler  in  lawful  matters,  as  long  as 
the  civil  state  continues  to  acknowledge  him.  The  direction  here 
given  to  the  subject,  not  to  leave  his  place,  but  to  yield,  must  signi- 
fy his  continuing  in  the  business  and  duty  of  the  subject ;  for  such  is 


392  ALEXANDER  AND  EUFUS. 

the  yielding  which  is  a  proper  mean  for  convincing  the  ruler  of  his 
error,  and  for  extinguishing  his  offence. 

The  third  precept  which  the  presbytery  produce  in  opposition  to 
the  opinion  of  those  whom  you  call  Covenanters,  is  our  Lord's  an- 
swer to  the  insidious  question  of  the  spies  sent  to  him  by  the  Phari- 
sees— Luke  XX.  25,  "  liender  therefore  unto  Caesar  the  things  which 
are  Caesar's,  and  unto  God  the  things  which  are  God's."  The  peo- 
ple, concerning  whose  subjection  to  a  certain  ruler  the  question  was 
proposed,  were  not  Gentiles,  or  such  as  had  never  been  reformed  ;  but 
the  Jews,  a  people  in  covenant  with  God,  whom  the  Lord  had  chosen 
to  be  a  peculiar  people  to  himself.  Their  ruler,  at  this  time,  was 
Caesar,  a  heathen,  acknowledged  by  them  as  their  king,  John  xix.  15. 
The  question,  '*  Is  it  lawful  for  us  to  give  tribute  to  Ceesar,  or  not," 
was  intended  to  insnare  our  Saviour,  by  inducing  him  to  give  such 
an  answer  as  would  either  expose  him  to  the  penalty  of  the  Koman 
law,  by  disowning  Caesar's  title  ;  or  to  the  resentment. of  the  Jewish 
people,  by  owning  his  title  in  such  a  manner  as  would  be  contrary  to 
the  liberty  and  privileges  which  they  still  claimed.  But  they  were  dis- 
appointed in  their  expectations  :  for,  in  his  answer,  he  acknowledged 
Caesar's  title ;  and  by  adding,  at  the  same  time,  the  command  of  ren- 
dering unto  God  the  things  which  are  God's,  he  declared  the  regard 
due  to  God  in  his  Being  and  institutions.  Thus,  they  could  not  take 
hold  of  his  words  before  the  people  :  they  could  not  find  him  charge- 
able with  teaching  what  was  contrary  to  any  law,  civil  or  ecclesias- 
tic. They  marvelled  at  his  answer.  It  was  an  admirable  display  of 
Divine  wisdom.  Some  have  supposed,  that  in  this  answer,  our  Lord 
shifts  the  question,  and  leaves  (aesar's  title  undetermined.  Our  Lord 
might  indeed  have  lawfully  refused  to  answer  their  captious  question, 
had  he  seen  meet ;  but,  to  impute  a  shifting  or  equivocal  answer  to 
him,  is  to  reproach  and  blaspheme  him.*     For  Caesar  either  had,  or 

*  It  has  been  said,  that  our  Saviour  declined  answering  a  question  respecting 
sin  and  duty,  on  other  occasions  ;  as  in  the  case  of  his  own  authority,  Mark  xi. 
27 — 33  ;  iu  tiie  case  of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery,  John  viii.  4 — 12  ;  and  in  tlmt 
of  the  division  of  an  inheritance,  Luke  xii.  13. 

But  it  may  be  observed,  with  regard  to  the  woman  taken  in  adultery,  and  the 
division  of  an  inheritance  between  man  and  his  brother,  that  our  Lord  declined 
determininjj:  these  cases,  as  what  ])roperly  belonged  to  the  civil  magistrate:  — 
Whereas,  the  question  concerning  the  lawfulness  of  giving  tribute  to  UcBsar,  was 
an  imijortant  case  of  conscience,  which  it  belonged  to  his  office,  as  the  great 
Prophet  and  Teacher  of  his  church,  to  determine.  As  to  the  qut-siion  concerning 
his  ovvn  authority,  his  appeal  to  John  the  Baptist's  testimony  concerning  his  per- 
son and  ofli,ce,  was  a  sufficient  determination  of  it,  though  ho  r*]']  roi  g.ve  the 
formal  answer  to  these  designing  men,  but  left  it  to  be  interrerl  fn^m  their  own 
consciences.  But  as  to  the  question,  whether  it  was  lawful  to  give  tribute  to  Cae- 
sar, to  say  that  ourLor-i's  answer,  connected,  as  it  was,  with  the  acknowledgment 
of  those  who  proposed  the  question,  did  not  determine  it  in  the  affirmative,  is  to 
say,  at  least,  that  his  words,  on  this  occasion,  do  not  give  that  instruction,  which 
every  circumstance  of  text  concurs  in  suggesting,  that  he  did  give.  It  has  been 
said,  that  Christ's  commanding  tribute  to  be  paid  to  Csesar,  unless  he  commanded 
it  to  hQ  paid  as  a  tessara  or  token  of  loyalty,  no  more  proves  the  morality  of  Qse- 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  393 

had  not,  a  just  title.  If  he  had  not  a  just  title  ;  then,  an  evasive  an- 
swer would  have  at  least  dissembled  and  palliated  sin,  instead  of 
tending  to  reclaim  from  it ;  if  he  had,  such  an  answer  would  have 
dissembled  and  dishonored  truth,  instead  of  declaring  and  recom- 
mending it.  Besides,  while  the  answer  plainly  bears  the  form  of  a 
command,  it  must  be  most  dishonoring  to  the  Lord  Christ,  to  as- 
cribe to  him  an  ambiguous  and  shifting  command,  a  command  which 
binds  to  nothing.  Indeed,  if  we  allow  ambiguity  in  one  of  the 
clauses  of  this  command,  we  must  allow  it  in  both  ;  for  it  asserts 
both  God's  right,  and  Caesar's  in  the  same  terms  :  and  how  absurd  is 
it  to  represent  our  Saviour,  as  declining  in  this  answer  to  assert  the 
prerogatives  of  his  Father  !  The  word  therefore,  requires  the  com- 
mand to  be  understood  as  an  inference  from  what  had  been  imme- 
diately before  confessed,  that  the  money,  which  they  allowed  to  be 
current  among  them,  bore  Cassar's  image  and  superscription.  The 
native  inference  from  this  fact  is,  that  Caesar  was  actually,  and  by  the 
tacit  consent  of  the  Jews,  their  chief  ruler ;  and  therefore,  that  they 
owed  him  tribute. 

A  fourth  precept  to  the  same  purpose  is,  that  which  the  apostle 
Paul,  delivers  in  the  first  seven  verses  of  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  the 
epistle  to  the  Romans.  It  is  essential  to  all  the  books  of  scripture, 
that  every  part  of  them  was  necessary,  with  respect  to  the  duty  and 
interest  of  men,  at  the  very  time  when  they  were  first  written,  as 
well  as  in  after  ages.  It  would  be  a  reflection  on  the  wisdom  of  God 
to  say,  that  he  had  ever  made  a  revelation  which  was  of  no  use  at 
the  tfme  when  it  was  made.  But  of  what  use  could  this  command, 
concerning  subjection  to  the  higher  powers,  be  to  the  Romans,  if  it 
was  not  to  be  applied  to  themselves  with  reference  to  the  rulers  then 
in  being  ?  Surely,  it  would  have  been  needless  for  the  apostle  to 
deliver  a  rule,  with  pathetic  expostulations  concerning  the  necessity 
and  importance  of  it,  to  persons  who  had  no  interest  in  it ;  no  op- 
portunity or  warrant  to  put  it  in  practice.     Nay,  on  supposition 

sar's  right,  than  his  allowing  a  person  to  give  a  part  of  his  property  to  a  robber, 
whose  superior  physical  power  was  manifest,  in  order  to  save  the  person's  life,  or 
the  remainder  of  his  property.  But  there  was  certainly  a  diflference  between  Cae- 
sar's claim,  and  that  of  the  robber ;  as  the  former  was  made  under  the  considera- 
tion of  a  lawful  debt,  due  to  a  legitimate  ruler  ;  whereas,  the  latter  is  supposed 
to  be  made  on  no  other  ground  than  that  of  superior  physical  power.  When 
there  are  two  evils,  to  one  of  which  a  person  must  submit,  if  both  be  physical,  he 
is  to  choose  the  least;  but  no  moral  evil  is  ever  to  be  chosen  or  submitted  to. 
The  act,  however,  of  paying  tribute  to  any  civil  government,  by  a  person  who 
coasiderb  it  as  an  unlawful  government,  is  a  moral  evil.  For  whtn  a  'civil  gov- 
ernment demands  tribute  under  the  notion  of  a  just  right,  the  payment  of  it,  be- 
ing in  its  nature  a  voluntary  act,  is  an  acknowledgment  of  that  right ;  and  conse- 
quently, of  the  legitimacy  of  the  government:  while  it  is  only  the  legitimacy  of  a 
government  that  makes  it  lawful  to  pay  tribute  to  it.  A  person,  therefore,  who 
regards  the  party  requiring  tribute  as  an  immoral  government,  can  no  more  war- 
rantably  pay  tribute  to  such  a  government,  than  a  person,  according  to  the  apos- 
tle, could  warrantably  eat  what  was  set  before  him,  after  it  was  told  him  that  it 
was  a  sacrifice  to  idols,  1  Corinth,  x.  28. 


394  ALEXANDER  AND  EUFUS. 

that  it  was  sinful  to  own  the  civil  rulers  who  were  then  acknowledged 
by  the  Romans,  or  to  obey  them  in  their  lawful  commands  for  con- 
science sake,  the  apostle's  manner  of  writing  in  this  passage,  tended 
to  insnare  the  christians  to  whom  he  wrote.  For,  while  he  presses 
them  to  be  subject  to  the  higher  powers,  he  no  where  gives  them  the 
least  hint  that  they  ought  not  to  apply  his  words  to  their  own  case, 
with  regard  to  the  magistrates  then  exercising  their  office  in  Rome. 
The  truth  is,  they  could  not  avoid  making  such  an  application  of  this 
passage.  The  apostle  puts  it  beyond  all  doubt,  that,  by  the  higher 
powers,  he  means  persons  in  power.  For  when  he  gives  the  reason 
why  the  christians,  to  whom  he  wrote,  were  to  be  subject  to  these 
higher  powers,  he  calls  them  rulers  and  God^s  ministers ;  and, 
speaking  individually  of  the  power,  he  calls  him  ''the  minister  of 
God ;"  '*'  He  that  beareth  not  the  sword  in  vain  ;  a  revenger,  to  ex- 
ecute wrath  upon  him  that  doth  evil."  Thus,  it  is  plain,  that  he 
speaks  of  persons  in  office  :  and  it  is  as  plain,  that  he  speaks  imme- 
diately of  the  rulers  who  were  then  exercising  their  office.  For  he 
calls  them  powers  that  are  presently  existing  ;  powers  that  are  or- 
dained. And  all  along,  he  speaks  of  the  poiver  and  the  powers  in 
the  present  time,  as  persons  then  actually  in  office.  And  he  incul- 
cates subjection  to  the  rulers,  in  its  several  parts,  as  the  duty  of  those 
very  christians  then  in  Rome,  and  as  a  present  duty  :  while  he  says 
unto  them,  '^  Pay  ye  tribute;  render  tribute,  custom,  fear,  honor." 
Thus,  it  is  certain,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  here  enjoins  civil  subjec- 
tion, in  all  its  parts,  upon  the  christians  in  Home,  towards  tlie  rulers 
then  in  the  Roman  empire.  Though  the  advantage  of  those  civil 
rulers  who  are  privileged  with  the  full  discovery,  made  in  revealed 
religion  of  the  law  of  nature,  be  very  great;  yet,  it  is  an  important 
truth,  that  there  is  no  other  duty  incumbent  on  the  civil  magistrate, 
precisely  as  such,  than  what  can  be  argued  for  from  the  law  of  na- 
ture, without  having  recourse  to  any  principles  peculiar  to  revealed 
religion.  Here  the  apostle  treats  of  the  duty  of  the  magistrates, 
precisely  as  such,  without  touching  on  any  thing,  good  or  bad,  re- 
specting their  private  character  or  qualifications  :  because  he  intended 
to  show,  that  the  christians  at  Rome,  in  their  subjection  to  the  civil 
magistrates  there,  were  to  view  them  no  otherwise  than  precisely  as 
magistrates,  possessing  and  exercising  civil  power,  according  to  the 
characters  here  given  of  magistrates,  as  ministers  of  God,  for  good  to 
those  over  whom  they  are  placed,  and  as  not  a  terror  to  good  v/orks, 
but  to  the  evil.  We  cannot  suppose  that  there  ever  were  or  could 
be  any  such  magistrates  or  persons  in  civil  power  by  the  will  of  their 
people,  as  had  not  these  characters  in  some  cons'derable  degree  and 
were  not  instrumental,  under  God,  in  preserving  some  external  order 
and  equity  in  the  world  ;  and  in  restraining  mankind  from  devouring 
one  another,  like  the  fishes  of  the  sea.  No  considerate  persons,  who 
are  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  Roman  government,  will  say 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  395 

of  the  mapristrates  through  the  empire  in  the  apostle's  time,  that  they 
did  not  at  all  bear  these  characters,  nor  answer  these  ends.*  On  the 
whole,  what  is  clearly  stated  in  this  passage,  as  the  rule  of  duty  to 
the  christians  at  Rome,  must,  according  to  the  general  nature  and 
design  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  be  obligatory  as  a  rule  of  duty  on  all 
christians  in  the  world ;  bhidiug  them  to  be  subject,  not  only  for 
wratli,  but  for  conscience  sake,  to  all  magistrates  presently  acknowl- 
edged by  the  nation  to  which  they  belong  ;  and  also,  to  contend  and 
testily,  according  to  their  knowledge  and  opportunity,  against  all  the 
evils,  public  and  private,  with  which  any  of  these  magistrates  are 
chargeable. 

A  fifth  precept,  which  the  Associate  Presbytery  produce  against 
the  opinion  in  question,  is  expressed  in  the  words  of  the  apostle  ; 
"  Put  them  in  mind  to  be  subject  to  principalities  and  powers,  to 
obey  magistrates,  to  be  ready  to  every  good  work,"  Tit.  iii.  1.  It  is 
evident,  that  the  duty,  which  the  apostle  charges  Timothy  to  incul- 
cate upon  the  christians  in  Crete,  is  that  of  obedience  and  subjection 
to  the  lawful  commands  of  such  magistrates  only,  as  were  then  in  the 
Roman  empire,  to  which  the  Cretians  belonged.  This  passage 
agrees,  in  the  particular  now  mentioned,  with  that  which  was  last 
quoted  from  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  ; 
and  also,  in  its  being  applicable  to  all  men,  with  reference  to  what- 
ever magistrates  are  over  them  by  the  consent  of  the  civil  state  to 
which  they  belong. 

The  last  precept  which  the  Associate  Presbytery  propose  on  this 
question,  is  in  these  words  of  the  apostle  Peter  :  "  Submit  yourselves 
to  every  ordinance  of  man  for  the  Lord's  sake ;  whether  it  be  to  the 
king  as  supreme  ;  or  unto  governors,  as  unto  them  that  are  sent  by 
him  for  the  punishment  of  evil  doers,  and  for  the  praise  of  them  that 
do  well.  For  so  is  the  will  of  God,  that  with  well  doing  ye  may  put 
to  silence  the  ignorance  of  foolish  men  :  as  free,  and  not  using  your 
liberty  for  a  cloak  of  maliciousness,  but  as  the  servants  of  God.  Fear 
God.  Bonor  the  king,"  Pet  ii.  13,  14,  15,  17.  That  the  apostle 
here  speaks  of  persons,  who  were  then  in  power,  and  who  might  then 
be  submitted  to,  cannot  be  denied  without  an  express  contradiction 
of  his  words.  A  distinction  of  persons  in  power  or  magistrates,  which 
is  understood  in  the  former  precepts,  is  here  expressed,  namely,  a 
distijiction  of  them  into  supreme  and  subordinate.  Christians  are  en- 
joined to  yield  submission  to   every  ordinance  of  man  ;  that  is,  to 

*  HcDce  we  may  understand,  that  the  monstrous  wickedness  of  Nero,  is  no  rele- 
vant objection  against  the  submission  here  enjoined  to  the  Roman  government. 
For  we  are  to  distinguish  between  the  personal  character  of  Nero,  in  respect  of 
which  he  was  to  be  detested,  and  his  public  character,  as  invested  with  authority 
by  the  laws  of  the  empire,  and  as  administering  the  government  according  to 
these  laws.  In  the  former  character,  he  was  justly  condemned  as  an  enemy  of 
mankind,  by  the  senate  of  Rome ;  in  the  latter,  he  was  to  be  respected  and  obeyed 
in  his  lawful  commands. 


396  ALEXANDER  AND   RUFUS. 

every  person  in  civil  office  by  the  will  of  the  society.  And  that  they 
might  have  no  pretence  for  declining  that  submission,  on  account  of 
the  unworthiness  or  wickedness  of  any  of  these  persons,  he  teaches, 
that  they  should  be  submitted  to  in  their  lawful  commands,  for  the 
Lor^s  aake.  It  was  necessary,  that  they  should  reverence  God's  in- 
stitution in  the  ofi&ce  of  these  persons,  and  his  sovereign  will  in  choos- 
ing to  make  any  use  of  them  for  maintaining  public  order  in  the 
world.  What  the  apostle  in  this  passage  said  to  the  christians  in  his 
time,  is  here  recorded  as  a  rule,  to  which  the  practice  of  christians 
was  to  be  actually  conformed  in  all  succeeding  generations. 

Thus,  the  Associate  Presbytery  showed,  that  their  doctrine  con- 
cerning the  duty  of  owning  the  civil  magistrate,  and  of  obeying  him 
in  his  lawful  command,  is  taught  by  the  precepts  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures. 

They  also  showed,  that  their  doctrine  on  this  subject,  was  con- 
firmed by  the  examples  of  God's  people,  which  are  imitable  in  all  suc- 
ceeding ages.* 

*  In  order  to  evade  the  warrant,  we  have  to  submit  to  the  civil  government, 
■under  which  we  live,  in  its  lawful  commands,  arising  from  such  examples,  it  is 
not  pretended,  either  that  the  governments  under  which  these  saints  accepted 
civil  offices  were  legitimate,  or  that  their  acceptance  of  them  was  sinful :  but 
some  other  suppositions  are  made;  such  as,  that  an  office  may  be  held,  and  the 
duties  belonging  to  it  may  be  done,  without  any  acknowledgment  of  the  legiti- 
macy of  the  civil  government  under  which  it  is  held.  But,  as  has  been  just  now 
shown,  if  a  government  has  no  lawful  authority,  the  nominal  officers,  who  are 
subordinate  parts  of  it,  cannot  have  any:  and  in  that  case,  their  pretending  to 
perform  official  duties  is  sinful. 

Another  supposition  that  has  been  made  with  respect  to  Daniel  and  his  three 
friends,  who  held  offices  in  Babylon,  is,  That  the  immorality  of  the  Babylonish 
government  was  indefinite;  that  they  had  no  fixed  constitution;  that  the  mon- 
arch's will  was  the  law  of  the  realm  ;  that  we  are  not  certain  whether  there  was 
any  thing  essential  to  this  government  but  mere  physical  force  :  that  on  the  con- 
trar}^  almost  every  thing  in  the  American  Constitution  is  specific  :  that  Daniel, 
on  account  of  the  nature  of  the  Babylonish  government,  as  now  represented,  had 
not  to  swear  to  support  an  immoral  constitution.  To  this  supposition,  it  may  be 
answered,  that  we  cannot  impute  to  Daniel  athing  so  contrary  to  the  law  of  God, 
as  it  would  have  been  for  him  to  consent  to  be  a  part  of  so  irrational  a  govern- 
ment, as  that  which  is  here  described;  a  government  having  no  constitution,  no 
rule,  but  the  unknown  will  of  one  man,  or  physical  force.  But  this  representa- 
tion is  not  applicable  to  the  Babylonians,  who  were  as  proud  of  their  intellectual 
attainments  as  of  their  physical  strength.  Hence  the  Lord  says  to  Babylon  :  "  Thv 
wisdom  and  thy  knowledge  have  perverted  thee."  "Thou  art  wearied  in  the  laiut- 
titude  of  tliy  counsels,"  Isai.  xlvi.  10,  13.  The  reputation  of  the  Babylonians  for 
science,  their  judges  and  counsellors  lead  us  to  conclude,  that  they  had  written 
laws,  or  laws  as  much  known  and  regarded  as  if  they  had  been  written.  There 
are  rulers  in  every  state,  which,  whether  written  or  not,  have  a  sort  of  establish- 
ment by  custom  and  general  approbation,  and  which  the  most  despotic  princes 
are  afraid  lo  violate.  In  Babylon,  particularly,  it  is  said,  there  were  three  separ- 
ate tribunals  appointed  to  administer  justice;  the  first  of  of  which  took  cogni- 
zance of  adultery  and  similar  olTences  ;  the  second  of  thefts  ;  and  the  third  of  all 
other  crimes.  Such  tribunals  suppose  that  there  was  a  civil  constitution  and  laws 
in  Babylon.  The  fact  that  the  Babylonians  drove  their  king  from  among  them 
■when  he  -vvas  in  a  state  of  insanity,  shows  that  they  knew  their  rights  I)y  some 
other  rule  than  the  will  of  their  prince,  Daniel  iv.  33.  Nor  is  it  improbable,  that 
Daniel  and  his  three  friends  took  an  oath  ot  allegiance  :  since  Nebuchadnezzar,upon 
delivering  the  government  of  Judah  to  Zedekiah,  made  him  swear  such  an  oath. 


ALEXANDER  AND   RUFUS.  397 

It  was  their  constant  practice,  as  it  is  represented  in  the  sacred 
history  of  the  Old  Testament,  to  live  in  subjection  and  obedience  to 
the  authority  of  such  magistrates  as  were  acknowledged  by  the  civil 
society  of  which  they  were  members.  This  practice  of  the  pious  in 
the  kingdom  of  Judah,  did  not  arise  from  any  extraordinary  obli- 
gation they  were  under  to  the  family  of  David  ;  for  they  behaved  in 
tiie  same  manner  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel.  Nor  was  it  on  account 
of  a  due  measure  of  scriptural  qualifications  possessed  by  the  rulers  ; 
for  they  yielded  subjection  and  obedience  in  lawful  matters  to  the 
worst  of  the  kings  who  were  over  them  by  the  will  of  the  civil  society 
to  which  they  belonged.  Nor  was  their  practice  in  this  matter  any 
other  under  the  wicked  kings  in  Israel  and  Judah  where  great  refor- 
mation had  been  attained,  than  it  was  under  the  heathen  princes  in 
Egypt  and  Babylon. 

The  example  of  christians  in  owning  civil  rulers  and  obeying  them 
in  their  lawful  commands  is  the  same,  as  it  was  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. We  see  the  apostle  Paul,  conformably  to  his  own  doctrine, 
acknowledging  the  authority  of  the  Roman  magistrates  supreme  and 
subordinate.  He  cheerfully  answered  for  himself  before  Felix  as  a 
judge  to  the  Jewish  nation.  Acts  xxiv.  10 ;  before  Festus  and  King 
Agrippa,  Acts  xxv.  8  ;  xxvi,  2  ;  and  he  actually  appealed  to  Caesar, 
declaring  that  he  ought  to  be  judged  at  Caesar's  judgment-seat.  Acts 
xxv.  10,  11.  It  is  true,  he  says,  when  the  Jews  spake  against  him, 
"  he  was  constrained  to  appeal  to  Caesar,"  Acts  xxviii.  19.  But  the 
constraint  he  was  under,  in  this  case,  was  what  the  nature  of  an  ap- 
peal implies,  a  moral  constraint,  which  not  only  allows,  but  requires 
the  action  to  be  voluntary.  It  is  evident,  that  in  this  appeal  he  ac- 
knowledged Caesar's  office  and  authority.  The  apostle  Paul's  exhor- 
tation to  christians  in  his  time,  to  pray  and  give  thanks  for  all  that 
are  in  authority,  implies  that  there  was  then  no  dispute  about  the  le- 
gitimacy of  those  magistrates,  who  were  acknowledged  to  be  such  by 
the  civil  society  to  which  they  belonged.  The  same  thing  is  implied 
in  the  condemnation  of  some  wicked  persons  for  despising  dominion 
and  speaking  evil  of  dignities,  or  of  their  civil  rulers. 

§  61.  Alex.  Th&  Reformed  Presbytery,  I  understand,  complained 
much  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  as  chargeable  in  this  matter  with 
confounding  the  preceptive  and  the  providential  will  of  God.     A  per- 

Nor  does  it  seem  improbable,  that  it  was  one  of  the  laws  of  the  Babylonian  em- 
pire, that  an  oath  of  allegience  should  be  required  of  such  as  were  admitted  to 
offices  of  trust.  When  a  government  is  said  to  be  despotic  or  arbitrary,  it  does 
not  necessarily  mean  that  there  are  no  laws  at  all,  where  it  obtains  ;  but  that  the 
rulers  unjustly  exalt  their  will  or  pleasure  above  the  laws.  After  all,  this  excep- 
tion does  not  affect  the  design  for  which  we  produce  these  examples  :  which  is, 
to  show  that  the  people  of  God  have  always  distinguished  between  the  being  and 
the  well-being  of  a  lawful  civil  government ;  and  acknowledged  the  former,  even 
when  there  was  not  more,  but  much  less  of  the  latter,  than  in  the  case  of  our 
present  civil  government;  just  as  other  civil  relations,  agreeaable  to  the  law  oX 
nature,  subsist,  notwithstanding  the  vices  of  those  related. 


398  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

son  may  be  a  civil  magistrate,  said  the  Reformed  Presbytery,  by  the 
consent  of  the  majority  of  a  nation,  who  is  so  only  by  the  providential 
will  of  God,  and  not  according  to  his  preceptive  will. 

RuF.  This  distinction  seems  to  be  of  no  use  in  the  question  be- 
tween them  and  the  Associate  Presbytery  ;  as  that  presbytery  never 
said,  that  a  rightful  magistrate  is  or  can  be  constituted  by  any  event 
in  the  course  of  Providence,  without  regard,  or  in  contrariety,  to  the 
precept.  The  only  point  in  dispute  between  the  two  presbyteries  was, 
what  it  is  that  constitutes  a  preceptive  magistrate. 

Alex.  The  Reformed  Presbytery  give  several  examples  of  provi- 
dential rulers,  that  were  not  preceptive.  Thus  Saul  was  providen- 
tially continued  on  the  throne  of  Israel,  after  the  Lord  had  ejected 
him  from  being  king  :  David,  from  the  time  at  which  ISamuel  anointed 
him,  was  the  rightful  king :  and  not  only  David,  but  many  among 
the  tribes  of  Israel  rejected  the  government  of  J:^aul. 

RuF.  The  Lord's  rejection  of  Saul,  intimated  to  him  by  Samuel, 
respected  the  succession  to  the  throne  in  his  family,  not  his  actual 
continuance  in  the  office  of  a  king  during  his  own  life.  This  rejec- 
tion was  intimated  at  two  different  times ;  the  first  is  recorded  in  1 
Sam.  xiii.  13,  14.  the  second  in  chap.  xv.  26 — 28.  It  does  not  ap- 
pear ihat  any  person,  beside  Samuel  and  Saul,  was  privy  to  these  in- 
terviews. After  the  first  of  these  intimations,  Sa,muel,  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord,  commanded  him  to  go  and  smite  Amalek,  1  Samuel  xv. 
1,  2.  After  the  second,  Samuel's  returning  to  honor  Saul  before  the 
elders  and  people  of  Israel,  implied  an  acknowledgment  of  him  as 
king.  And  afterwards  a  like  acknowledgment  is  implied  in  David's 
accepting  a  commission  in  the  army,  and  going  wherever  the  king 
sends  him  against  his  enemies,  1  Sam.  xviii.  13,  25,  26,  27.  And 
David,  even  when  he  fled  from  the  violent  attemps  of  Saul  against  his 
life,  still  owned  him  to  be  the  Lord's  anointed.  The  anointing  of 
David  by  Samuel  was  only  his  designation  to  be  Saul's  successor  in 
the  kingdom.  But  he  neither  was  nor  could  be  actually  a  king,  till 
he  was  chosen  and  constituted  such  by  his  being  anointed,  first  over 
Judah,  and  seven  years  afterward,  over  Israel.  Thus  it  appears  that 
Saul,  from  the  time  of  his  election  to  the  royai  office  till  his  death, 
was  preceptively,  the  only  actual  king  in  Israel.  Many  of  the  sev- 
eral tribes  of  Israel  helped  David  and  espoused  his  cause  in  op- 
position to  Saul's  unjust  persecution  of  him.  But  it  does  not  fol- 
low, that  they  owned,  as  yet,  any  other  lawful  King  of  Israel  than 
Saul. 

Alex.  Another  example  which  the  reformed  Presbytery  produced 
to  show,  that  a  person's  being  in  authority,  by  the  consent  of  the  peo- 
ple, is  not  sufficient  to  constitute  him  a  lawful  ruler,  is  that  of  Absa- 
lom. For,  say  they,  David  was  ejected  out  of  the  hearts  and  terri- 
tories of  Israel ;  and  Absalom  was  in  authority  by  the  consent  of  the 
people :  and  yet  Absalom  was  not  the  rightful  sovereign  of  Israel, 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS,  399 

but  David.     In  order  to  prove  that  David  was  ejected  out  of  the  hearts 
of  the  majority   of  Israel,  they  quote  these  words,  That  "  Absalom 
passed  over  Jordan  and  all  the  men  of  Israel  with  him,"  2  Sam.  xvi.  24. 
RuF.  David  was  not  ejected  out  of  the  territories  of  Israel  on  occa- 
sion of  this  rebellion :  he  was  accompanied  with  an  armed  force  from 
Judah  to  Mahanaim,  a  city,  which  was  situated  in  the  confines  of  the 
half-tribe  of  Manasseh  where  it  bordered  on  the  tribe  of  Gad,  and 
which  had  been  the  seat  of  goverment,  when  Ishbosheth  reigned  ovei 
Israel     Nor  is  it  proved,  that  David  was  wholly  ejected  by  the  ex- 
pression you  have  mentioned.     There  was,  no  doubt,  a  considerable 
number  of  the   Israelites  who  joined  with  Absalom  in  his  conspiracy, 
but  that  they  were  all  Israel,  or  the  majority,  cannot  be  proved  from 
the  term  all,  more  than  it  can  be  proved  from  the  same  term,  that  all 
Israel  were  with  David  when  he  passed  over  the  brook  Kidron.^    All 
the  country  or  the  whole  land,  as  the  words  of  the  original  signify, 
*'  wept  with  a  loud  voice,  and  all  the  people  passed  over,"  2  Sam.  xv. 
23.     Both  places  are  to  be  understood  of  the  all  that  were  with  David 
and  with  Absalom  respectively.     In  the  case  of  David,  it  is  not  dispu- 
ted )  and  that  it  must  be  so  taken  in  Absalom's  case  is  evident  from 
the  use  of  this  term  in  the  account  of  the  counsels  which  Hushai  gave 
to  Absalom,   to  gather  all  Israel  generally  to  him.     Upon  hearing 
this  counsel,  Absalom  and  all  the  men  of  Israel  said,  It  is  better 
than  Ahithophel's,  2  Sam.  xvii.  11,  14.     It  is  plain,  that,  since  all  the 
men  of  Israel  generally  were  absent,  being  yet  to  be  gathered  to  Absa- 
lom, when  the  expression  all  Israel  is  used  with  regard  to  those  who 
who  approved  Hushai's  counsel,  it  can  mean  no  more  than  those  who 
were  already  with  Absalom.     Nor  is  it  necessary  to  understand  it  oth- 
erwise in  the  24th  verse.     There  is  no  evidence  that  Absalom  was  reg- 
ularly chosen  by  the  people  of  Israel,  or  even  by  any  of  the  tribes,  to 
be  their  king.     Even  in  the  height  of  the  conspiracy,  the  description 
which  Hushai  gave  of  the  rightful  sovereign  was  applicable,  not  to  Ab- 
salom, but  to  David,  namely,  he  "  whom  the  Lord  and  this  people  and 
all  the  men  of  Israel,"  that  is,  the  majority  of  them,  choose,  2  Sam. 
xvi.  18.     The  possession  of  the  kingdom,  according  to  Ahithophel's 
counsel,  which  is  called  good,  as  being  well  adapted  to  the  success  of 
Absalom's  enterprise,  was  to  be  determined,  not  by  the  choice  of  the 
people,  but  by  the  sword. 

Alex.  I  shall  mention  only  another  of  their  examples,  which  is  that 
of  Libnah,  a  city  of  the  priests,  revolting  from  Jehoram  ;  because  he 
had  forsaken  the  Lord  God  of  his  fathers,  2  Chron.  xxi.  10.  This^ 
they  say,  is  an  approved  example  of  a  refusal  of  subjection  to  persons 
in  power,  on  accounts  purely  rehgious. 

KuF.  The  last  clause  of  the  verse,  you  referred  to,  is,  in  the  orig- 
inal, connected  with  the  two  preceding  clauses  in  the  same  manner. 
So  that  the  motive  of  Edom's  revolt  from  Jehoram  and  that  of  Lib- 
nah appear  to  have  been  the  same.     But  we  cannot  suppose,  that  the 


400  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

Edomites,  a  heathen  people,  inveterate  enemies  of  God's  Israel,  acted 
from  religious  motives.  The  true  import  of  this  verse  is^  as  Mr.  Pool 
observes,  that  Jehoram's  forsaking  the  Lord  was  the  reason  why  the 
Lord  raised  him  up  so  many  enemies,  both  from  abroad  and  at  home. 

The  Associate  Presbytery  deny  that  the  case  of  simple  revolts  be- 
longs to  the  question  under  consideration.  A  simple  revolt  lies  in 
breaking  off  immediately  from  the  civil  body  ;  and  consequently  from 
the  head  or  ruler  of  that  body,  without  ever  denying  his  authority 
over  the  members  who  still  belong  to  the  said  body.  It  would  be 
very  ridiculous  to  argue,  that  because  persons  may  justly  refuse  to  own 
the  authority  of  a  civil  state  over  them,  when  they  no  more  belong  to 
it,  they  may,  therefore,  refuse  to  do  so,  while  they  still  belong  to  it. 

Alex.  These  people  hold  the  magistrate  whom  they  are  willing  to 
own -as  a  lawful  magistrate  to  be  one  who  exercises  a  compulsory  and 
punitive  power  about  matters  of  religion.  They  insist  that  he  should 
execute  the  penalties  annexed  in  the  book  of  Moses  to  the  violation  of 
the  first  table  of  the  law,  as  well  as  those  annexed  to  the  violation  of 
the  second  :  such  as  that  in  Deut.  xiii.  5,  6.  ''  That  prophet  or  that 
dreamer  of  dreams  shall  be  put  to  death ;  because  he  hath  spoken  lies 
to  turn  you  away  from  the  Lord  your  God,  who  hath  brought  you  out 
of  the  land  of  Egypt.  If  thy  brother,  the  son  of  thy  mother,  or  thy 
son,  or  thy  daughter,  or  the  wife  of  thy  bosom,  or  thy  friend,  who  is 
as  thy  own  soul,  entice  thee  secretly,  saying,  come,  let  us  go  serve 
other  gods  ;  thou  shalt  not  consent,  neither  shalt  thou  spare,  neither 
shalt  thou  conceal  him,  but  thou  shalt  surely  kill  him." 

RuF.  It  is,  no  doubt,  the  duty  of  every  people  lo  use  means  to 
have  their  civil  constitution  and  administration  more  and  more  agree- 
able to  the  word  of  God  and  subservient  to  the  spiritual  kingdom  of 
Jesus  Christ.  It  is  granted,  that  we  have  much  reason  to  lament  the 
deficiency  of  our  civil  rulers  in  these  respects.  But  in  the  preceding 
arguments  it  has  been  shown,  that  there  may  be  various  degrees  of 
such  deficiency,  which  do  not  annul  the  relation  between  the  magis- 
trate and  the  people,  or  the  right  of  the  former  to  the  subjection  and 
obedience  of  the  latter  in  lawful  commands.  It  is  therefore  unnecessa- 
ry to  insist  further  on  this  point.  But  it  may  be  useful  to  observe 
that  many  are  led  into  error  with  regard  to  the  duty  of  the  civil  mag- 
istrate, by  supposing,  that  the  laws  delivered  by  Moses  concernmg 
what  was  to  be  done  in  the  Jewish  state  are  to  be  adcpted  indiscrim- 
inately as  the  municipal  law  of  every  other  state.  It  is  granted,  that 
many  of  these  laws  are  binding  on  every  nation,  as  they  are  manifestly 
precepts  cf  the  law  of  nature,  agreeing  with  what  we  find  anioug  the 
laws  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  and  other  heathen  nations,  so  far  as 
they  were  civihzed  and  followed  the  law  of  nature.  They  must  be 
binding  on  all,  when  they  are  necessarily  implied  in  the  precepts  of  the 
decalogue,  and  repeated  in  the  New  Testament.  But  it  is  obvious, 
that  several  of  these  laws  were  designed  to  be  binding  on  the  Jews 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  401 

only,  constituting  what  is  usually  termed  the  Judicial  Laiv ;  such  as, 
the  laws  concerning  the  cities  of  refuge  ;  concerniug  the  right  of  the 
first  born  to  a  double  portion  ;  concerning  the  jubilee  ;  concerning  a 
man's  marrying  the  widow  of  his  brother,  who  had  died  without  chil- 
dren ;  against  sowing  a  mixture  of  seeds  :  and  against  wearing  a  lin- 
sey-woolsey garment.  \Vith  regard  to  the  punishment  of  some  crimes, 
the  law,  considered  as  enjoining  punishment  was  moral;  and  yet  consid- 
ered as  determining  the  degree  of  punishment  it  was  judicial  *  A 
precept  must  be  considered  as  only  judicial,  if  the  observation  of  it  be 
inconsistent  with  any  command  given  in  the  New  Testament.  But  the 
charge  given  to  the  Israelite  in  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  Deuteronomy, 
not  to  spare  his  nearest  relation,  not  even  the  wife  of  his  bosom,  if 
such  a  relation  should  attempt  to  entice  him  to  idolatry,  is  manifestly 
inconsistent  with  the  command,  which  the  apostle  gives  to  christians 
not  to  leave  or  put  away  their  husbands  or  wives  on  account  of  their 
infidelity  or  idolatry,  1  Corinth,  vii.  12,  13,  14.  Though  we  cannot 
suppose  that  infidel  or  idolatrous  husbands  or  wives  would  fail  to  use 
every  means  in  their  power  to  entice  their  beloved  partners  to  join 
with  them  in  their  infidelity  and  idolatry  ;  yet  the  apostle  directs  chris- 
tians in  such  a  case,  instead  of  prosecuting  such  idolatrous  relations 
to  death,  to  live  with  them  in  peace. 

The  precepts  of  the  judicial  law,  were  designed  for  the  purpose  of 
maintaining  the  practice  of  the  ceremonial  law  ;  but  when  the  ceremo- 
nial law  itself  is  abrogated  by  the  coming  of  Christ,  these  precepts, 
which  were  intended  to  support  it,  are  no  longer  binding.  The 
church  was  always  a  spiritual  society,  maintained  by  the  word  and 
spirit  of  God.  Even  under  the  Old  Testament,  the  Lord  said  concern- 
ing the  maintenance  of  his  church  :  "  Not  by  might,  nor  by  power,  but 
by  my  Spirit."  Zechar.  iv.  6.  There  was  then,  however,  an  appear- 
ance of  carnal  power  in  the  Divine  appointment  of  the  Jewish  state, 
with  its  judicial  laws  and  armies,  to  be  a  peculiar  guard  to  the  church. 
But  now  under  the  New  Testament,  when  that  guard  is  removed, 
the  spirituality  of  the  means  by  which  the  church  is  maintained,  is  set 
in  a  clearer  light ;  For,  says  the  apostle,  "  though  we  walk  in  the 
flesh,  we  do  not  war  after  the  flesh  ;  for  the  weapons  of  our  warfare 
are  not  carnal,  but  mighty  through  God  to  the  pulling  down  of 
strong  holds.'' 

It  is  not  a  certain  rule,  that  a  law  or  command  is  moral,  when 
the  reason  given  for  it,  is  moral :  for  there  are  general  principles 
on  which  both  positive  and  moral  laws  are  established.  Thus,  the 
command  to  observe  the  ceremonial  distinction  between  clean  and 
unclean  beasts,  is  grounded  on  this  moral  reason,  That  as  God  is  ho- 

*  In  legibus  de  poenis  scelerum  juris  naturalis  est  prenae  substantia  ;  sed  modus 
et  gmdus  posnae  juris  est  particularis,  atque  adeo  mutabilib.  Turretini  Institut. 
Tlieo.  Elenct.,  Loc.  xi.,  Qusest.  37. 

26 


402  ALEXANDER  AND   RUFUS. 

ly,  so  his  people  ought  to  be  holy,  Lev.  xi.  44.  But  whatever  is  used 
to  enforce  any  command,  it  still  belongs  to  the  judicial  law,  while  it 
has  the  maintenance  of  their  distinct  national  state,  the  wall  of  par- 
tition between  them  and  the  Gentiles,  for  its  peculiai  and  immediate 
end.  And  it  is  the  more  reasonable  to  allow  that  their  kings  should 
be  appointed  to  do  some  things,  such  as  the  capital  punishment  of 
idolators,  not  simply  as  kings,  but  as  Jewish  kings,  because,  as  such, 
their  office  and  administration  were  typical  of  the  Lord  Christ,  the 
King  whom  God  hath  set  upon  his  holy  hill  of  Zion. 

Alex.  These  people  say,  that  they  cannot  fully  incorporate  with 
the  national  society ;  because  they  consider  it  as  in  a  state  of  nation- 
al rebellion  against  God.  The  federal  constitution,  say  they,  does 
not  even  recognise  his  existence  as  the  King  of  nations.  Most,  if 
not  all  of  the  state  constitutions  contain  positive  immorality  :  for 
they  recognise  such  rights  of  conscience  as  sanction  every  blasphemy, 
which  a  depraved  heart  may  believe  to  be  true.  The  officers  of 
government  are  sworn  to  support  these  constitutions.  Deists  and 
even  Atheists  may  be  chief  magistrates.  The  major  part  of  the 
states  recognise  the  principles  of  slavery.* 

RuF.  Some  have  supposed,  that  though  men  are  bound  by  the  law 
of  nature  to  form  civil  societies  and  to  establish  rulers ;  yet  indi- 
viduals or  any  minority,  though  living  within  the  boundaries  or  ter- 
ritory of  such  a  society  or  nation,  may,  for  reasons  which  they  think 
sufficient,  refuse  to  incorporate  with  it  in  its  civil  or  national  capaci- 
ty. But  this  supposition  is  contrary  to  the  obligation  men  are  under 
by  the  law  of  nature  to  defend  one  another  in  the  enjoyment  of  their 
natural  rights,  and  to  use  the  means  that  are  necessary  for  their  de- 
fence. Submission  to  civil  government,  being  one  of  these  means, 
and  a  necessary  assistance  which  men  owe  to  one  another,  they  can- 
not decline  communion  with  others  in  that  submission,  without  a  fla- 
grant transgression  of  the  law  of  nature. f     This  sin  is  greatly  ag- 

*  See  the  Two  Sons  of  Oil,  by  Mr.  Wylie,  page  48,  &e. 

i  If  it  should  be  asked,  how  we  can  oppose  separation  from  civil  communion  in 
the  state,  while  we  justify  secession  from  sacramental  communion  in  the  church : 
we  answer,  that  in  some  respects,  the  cases  are  not  parallel  : 

1.  Those  who  consider  themselves  as  separated  from  the  communion  of  the  state, 
do  so  upon  this  ground  that  the  magistrates  of  the  state  are  not  lawful  magis- 
trates at  all.  But  we  hold  it  to  be  consistent  with  our  secession  from  a  corrupt 
or  backsliding  church,  to  own  her  to  be  still  a  true  church  of  Christ,  and  her 
ministers  to  be  lawfully  called  ministers  of  Christ.  We  adhere  to  our  secession 
as  an  appointed  means  of  her  reformation  and  as  a  preservative  against  backslid- 
ing in  our  own  case. 

3.  People  may  be  justly  in  a  state  of  secession  from  a  particular  church  on  ac- 
count of  corruptions,  while  they  continue  to  reside  in  the  same  territory.^  But 
it  is  here  shown  that  a  minority  cannot  lawfully  remain  in  the  same  territory, 
while  they  disown  the  authority  of  the  civil  magistrate  chosen  and  supported  by 
the  body  of  the  inhabitants  there. 

3.  The  spiritual  ends  of  church  communion  may  be  sometimes  much  more 
promoted  by  secession  from  a  corrupt  church,  than  by  continuing  in  conjuction 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  403 

gravated  in  the  case  of  those  who  actually  enjoy  their  natural  rights 
under  the  protection  of  a  civil  government,  and  consequently  owe  it 
allegiance  in  point  of  justice  and  gratitude.  It  is  true,  that  a  civil 
society  may  lay  such  an  obstruction  in  the  way  of  an  individual,  as 
may  warrant  his  declining  their  civil  communion.  This  would  be 
the  case,  if  they  were  to  make  his  consent  to  the  violation  of  any 
command  of  God,  or  his  engagement  to  refrain  from  giving  a  faithful 
testimony  against  any  violation  of  his  command,  a  necessary  condi- 
tion of  that  communion.  In  that  case,  the  person  excluded  would 
be  an  outlaw,  or  rather  would  be  under  the  necessity  of  removing 
without  the  limits  of  their  jurisdiction.  In  such  a  case  it  is  neces- 
sary to  follow  our  Lord's  direction,  "  When  ye  are  persecuted  in  one 
city,  flee  to  another."  But  none  are  precluded  from  civil  communion 
by  such  obstructions  either  in  Great  Britain  or  in  the  United  States. 
It  is  true,  that,  in  the  former,  there  are  such  conditions  annexed  to 
a  seat  in  Parliament  and  other  places  of  trust,  as  Seceders  cannot 
comply  with,  consistently  with  their  profession  and  testimony.  But 
they  consider,  that  the  government  or  the  majority  in  every  civil 
society  must  have  the  power  of  granting  and  withholding  such  spe- 
cial favours,  at  their  pleasure  ;  and  that,  though  the  manner  in 
which  that  power  is  exercised  may  often  be  far  from  being  commen- 
dable, they  have  no  warrant,  on  that  account,  to  disown  a  govern- 
ment by  which  they  are  protected  in  their  natural  rights,  their  liber- 
ty and  property.  Seceders  as  well  as  others  enjoy  the  privileges  of 
citizens  more  fully  in  the  United  Stales.  The  constitutions  of  these 
states  include  no  ecclesiastical  supremacy,  make  no  incroachment  on 
the  liberty  and  independence  of  the  church  of  Christ,  and  secure  to  cit- 
izens a  greater  share  of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  than  any  other  po- 
litical constitutions  in  the  known  world. 

But  the  principal  reason  why  we  cannot  warrantably  disown  the 
federal  constitution  and  constitutions  of  the  several  states  is,  that 
they  contain  what  is  requisite,  a-^cording  to  the  law  of  nature,  to  the 
being  of  a  legitimate  government ;  namely,  that,  according  to  these 
constitutions,  our  magistrates  are  to  be  chosen  by  the  people  j  and 
that  the  end  of  their  office  is  to  preserve  public  order,  and  to  protect 
men  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  natural  rights  That  the  law  of  na- 
ture is  the  standard  of  a  legitimate  civil  government  is  admitted  by  a 
writer  who  professes  to  oppose  the  doctrine  of  the  Associate  Presby- 
tery on  this  head.*     "As  magistracy,"  says  he,  ''flows  from  GOD 

with  it.  But  with  regard  to  a  body  of  people  residing  in  the  same  territorj-,  the 
separation  of  any  considerable  part  from  the  civil  communion  of  the  rest,  would 
be  inconsistent  with  the  support  of  civil  society.  The  Lord  sometimes  com- 
mands his  people  to  withdraw  from  corrupt  churches ;  but  not  to  refuse  civil 
communion  in  lawful  things  with  the  men  of  the  world  :  for  that  would  be  to  go 
out  of  the  world. 

*  Mr.  Wylie  in  the  Two  Sons  of  Oil,  page  10. 


404  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

CREATOR,  the  common  parent  and  head  of  all,  the  law  of  nature, 
common  to  all  men,  must  be  the  immediate  rule  of  its  administration. 
A  relation  common  to  all  should  be  regulated  by  a  rule  common  to 
all.  All  stand  in  the  same  relation  to  God,  considered  as  (Creator 
and  Moral  Governor.  The  standard  for  regulating  this  relation  must, 
of  course,  be  common.  This  standard  is  the  law  of  nature,  which  all 
men  necessarily  possess."  It  is  true,  he  adds,  that  "Revelation  is 
introduced  as  a  rule,  by  the  requisitions  of  the  law  of  nature,  which 
binds  men  to  receive  with  gratitude  whatever  God  is  pleased  to  re- 
veal." But  surely  he  cannot  mean,  that  the  law  of  nature  binds  or 
even  allows  us  to  consider  revelation  as  necessary  to  determine  what 
constitutes  the  being  of  a  civil  magistrate  ;  to  determine  what  the  law 
of  nature  itself  had  sufficiently  determined  before.  The  sentiments 
contained  in  this  passage  and  the  necessary  consequences  of  them, 
were  they  candidly  adhered  to,  might  go  a  great  way  to  remove  the 
difference  between  two  bodies  of  Presbyterians,  both  professed  friends 
of  a  covenant  reformation. 

It  is,  indeed,  to  be  lamented,  that  in  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  no  rehgious  test  whatever  is  required  as  a  qualification  of  per- 
sons admitted  to  offices  of  trust,  not  even  such  an  acknowledgment  of 
the  being  of  God  and  of  a  future  state  as  is  required  of  public  officers 
in  the  constitutions  of  the  particular  states.  But  this  neglect  of  a 
due  acknowledgment  of  God  does  no  more  to  annul  the  civil  relation 
constituted  by  this  instrument  between  our  magistrates  and  their  peo- 
ple, than  such  a  neglect  can  do  to  annul  the  relations  of  husband  and 
wife,  of  master  and  servant.  Nor  is  it  improper  to  observe  with  re- 
gard to  this  and  other  defects  of  the  federal  constitution,  that  agreea- 
ble to  the  nature  of  republican  principles,  it  makes  provision  for  its 
own  amendment ;  and  therefore  one  who  engages  to  support  this  con- 
stitution is  not  to  be  considered  as  consenting,  that  its  errors  should 
be  retained,  but  as  declaring  his  desire,  that  all  just  and  regular  means 
may  be  used  for  having  them  corrected. 

The  expression  in  the  constitution  of  Pennsylvania,  "  that  all  men 
have  a  natural  and  indefeasible  right  to  worship  Almighty  God  ac- 
cording to  the  dictates  of  their  own  conscience,''  signifies  two  things  : 
First,  that  a  judgment  of  discretion  belongs  to  every  person  in  mat- 
ters of  religion :  and  second,  that  the  civil  magistrate  cannot  justly 
compel  persons  by  his  civil  penalties  to  embrace  any  profession  of  re- 
ligion, or  to  join  in  the  communion  of  any  church.  Hence  it  is  added 
in  the  said  constitution,  "  That  no  man  can,  of  right,  be  compelled 
to  attend,  erect,  or  support  any  place  of  worship,  or  to  maintain  any 
ministry  against  his  consent."  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  right, 
contemplated  in  this  passage  of  that  constitution,  is  not  a  right  in  re- 
lation to  God,  but  in  relation  to  the  civil  magistrate.  It  does  not 
mean,  that  men  have  a  right  before  God  to  worship  him  in  any  way 
which  an  erring  conscience  may  suggest;  however  contrary  to  his 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  405 

word ;  but  that,  for  doing  so,  they  are  not  amenable  to  the  judg- 
ment of  the  civil  magistrate.  Nor  is  it  hereby  meant,  thatthe  in- 
troduction of  men's  inventions  into  Divine  worship  is  less  sinful  or 
pernicious,  than  the  crime  of  robbing  a  person  of  his  property  ;  but 
that  the  cognisance  of  the  former  is  not,  like  that  of  the  latter,  within 
the  sphere  of  the  magistrate's  olSce  :  just  as  the  neglect  of  giving 
alms  to  the  poor,  or  the  neglect  of  seasonable  advice  may,  in  some 
cases,  be  very  criminal ;  and  yet  no  person  is  amenable  to  the  civil 
magistrate  for  such  neglect.  The  law  of  nature,  as  the  writer  former- 
ly referred  to  justly  observes,  is  the  standard  for  regulating  the  office 
of  the  civil  magistrate  and  his  administrations.  From  this  principle 
it  follows,  that  it  does  not  belong  to  the  civil  magistrate  to  take  cog- 
nizance of  any  other  evils,  than  such  as  are  contrary  to  the  law  of  na- 
ture. It  is  the  province  of  the  civil  magistrate  to  teach  the  commun- 
ity what  the  law  of  nature  requires  and  forbids  ;  while  the  public 
preaching  of  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  Divine  revelation,  the  judicial 
assertion  of  them,  and  the  judicial  censure  of  the  contrary  errors  be- 
long to  the  office  of  gospel  ministers  only. 

Alex.  According  to  the  author  whom  you  quoted  a  little  while 
ago,  the  civil  magistrate  has  a  right  to  judge  of  the  decrees  of  eccle- 
siastical assemblies  ;  and,  when  they  are  agreeable  to  the  law  of  God, 
it  is  his  duty  to  sanction  them  and  to  adopt  them  civilly  as  good 
and  wholesome  laws,  tending  to  promote  the  happiness  of  the  realm. 
Before  the  magistrate  give  his  sanction  to  any  church-deed,  he  must 
bring  it,  says  this  author,  to  the  sacred  touch-stone  :  if  it  agree  there- 
with, he  ought  to  ratify  it ;  if  not,  he  has  not  only  a  right  to  reject 
it,  but  he  is  bound  to  stamp  his  negative  upon  it.  He  ought  also, 
according  to  this  author,  to  exercise  a  compulsory  and  punitive  power 
about  things  religious  ;  a  power  which  extends  to  ail  persons  within 
his  jurisdiction. 

RuF.  It  is  not  denied,  that  a  person  who  is  a  civil  magistrate,  as 
well  as  others,  ought  to  judge  for  himself,  whether  the  determinations 
of  church  courts  be  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God  or  not,  and  may 
openly  declare  his  private  judgment.  But  the  judgment  by  which  he 
gives  his  sanction  to  these  determinations  when  they  are  agreeable  to 
the  law  of  God,  (that  is,  when  they  are  so  according  to  his  judgment;) 
by  which  he  puts  his  negative  upon  them,  when  they  are  not  so  ;  and 
which  is  attended  with  the  exercise  of  compulsory  and  punitive 
power,  must  be  an  authoritative  judgment.  To  allow  this  authorita- 
tive judgment  to  the  civil  magistrate  as  such,  who,  simply  under  this 
consideration,  is  not  a  member,  and  far  less  an  officer,  of  the  church 
of  Christ,  would  be  inconsistent  with  her  liberty  and  independence, 
and  even  with  her  relation  to  Christ  alone  as  her  head.  All  right  to 
an  authoritative  judgment  concerning  the  affairs  of  the  church  of 
Christ  is  derived  from  him  as  Mediator.  But  the  civil  magistrate  as 
such  derives  nothing  from  Christ  as  Mediator,  his  office  being  wholly 


406  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

from  God  as  the  God  of  nature.  Were  sueh  an  authoritative  judg- 
ment of  the  civil  magistrate  admitted,  and  supposed  to  be  only  equal 
to  that  of  church  courts,  it  must  be  sufficient,  in  the  case  of  his  op- 
position, to  counteract  the  determinations  of  these  courts,  and  to  ren- 
der them  of  no  effect.  But  the  truth  is,  it  must  be  superior  ;  while 
the  civil  magistrate  is  allowed  the  exercise  of  his  compulsory  and 
punitive  power  in  matters  of  religion.  This  is  materially  that  Eras- 
tian  scheme  which  wrests  the  government  of  the  church  out  of  the 
hands  of  those  officers  whom  Christ  has  appointed  in  his  church,  and 
puts  it  into  the  hands  of  the  civil  magistrate.  This  scheme  tends  to 
overthrow  the  sole  headship  of  Christ  over  his  church  ;  as  it  supposes 
her  courts  to  be  under  the  control  of  men,  who  cannot  be  pretended 
to  have  any  official  authority  from  Christ  as  Mediator  and  head  of 
his  church.  Besides,  it  is  a  scheme  inconsistent  with  the  natural 
rights  of  men  ;  as  it  allows  the  civil  magistrate,  civilly  by  his  authori- 
tative judgment  about  things  religious,  to  adopt  the  decrees  of  eccle- 
siastical assemblies  as  good  and  wholesome  laws  of  the  state,  to  be 
enforced  by  the  exercise  of  his  compulsory  and  punitive  power.  But 
how  can  we  suppose  it  to  be  always  or  almost  ever  the  case,  that 
there  will  be  none  that  are  to  be  accounted  good  and  peaceable  citi- 
zens who  ought  to  be  protected  by  the  civil  magistrate  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  their  natural  rights,  but  such  as  are  willing  to  submit  to  the 
determination  of  church  courts  ?  In  fine,  the  scripture  is  so  particu- 
lar in  declaring  that  the  loeapons  of  our  warfare,  or  the  means  of 
promoting  religion  under  the  New  Testament  dispensation,  are  not 
carnal ;  and  in  directing  christians,  who  are  scattered  among  so  many 
nations,  to  live  peaceably  with  all  men,  and  to  do  them  good  in  tem- 
poral things,  however  little  success  there  may  be  in  attempts  to  bring 
them  to  the  knowledge  of  evangelical  truth,  Rom.  xii.  18  ;  Gal.  v. 
10,  that  we  have  much  reason  to  disapprove  schemes  which  recom- 
mend the  use  of  compulsory  and  violent  measures  for  turning  men  from 
their  errors  in  religion.  The  direction  in  Luke  xiv.  23,  "  Compel 
them  to  come  in,"  has  sometimes  been  cited  in  favor  of  such  measures 
for  that  end.  But  it  is  remarkable,  that  according  to  the  true  import 
of  that  parable,  this  charge  is  given  to  gospel  ministers.  They  are 
the  only  public  servants  whom  Christ  employs  in  bringing  sinners  in- 
to his  house  ;  and  the  only  weapons  with  which  he  furnishes  them  for 
compelling  sinners  to  come  in,  are  the  doctrines,  the  promises,  the 
invitations,  the  warnings,  and  other  persuasive  arguments  to  be  found 
in  his  own  word.  In  this  view,  the  text  now  mentioned  is  very  much 
against  any  consideration  of  the  sword  of  the  civil  magistrate  as  a 
proper  mean  of  reclaiming  men  from  errors  in  religion.  For  if  Christ 
had  meant  that  the  sword  should  be  used  for  that  end,  he  would 
rather  have  given  this  command  to  the  civil  magistrate,  armed,  as  he 
is,  with  the  sword,  than  to  gospel  ministers,  altogether  destitute  of 
worldly  power. 


ALEXANDER  AND  EUFUS.  407 

Thus,  Alexander,  I  would  plead  for  toleration  :  not,  however,  for 
that  positive  toleration,  by  which  positive  countenance  and  encour- 
agement are  given  to  the  erroneous  ;  but  for  that  negative  toleration, 
which  consists  in  not  molesting  people,  or  not  depriving  them  of  their 
natural  rights  ;  of  their  lives,  their  liberty  or  property,  on  account  of 
errors  in  their  religious  profession ;  while  there  is  nothing  in  that  pro- 
fession, or  in  their  practice,  inconsistent  with  the  external  character 
of  good  and  peaceable  members  of  civil  society. 

Alex.  Inattention  to  the  difference  between  the  office  of  the  civil 
magistrate  and  that  of  the  gospel  minister,  in  respect  of  their  origin, 
the  objects  about  which  they  ought  to  be  exercised,  and  their  imme- 
diate ends,  appears  to  have  been  a  principal  cause  of  error  on  this 
head.  Some  have  supposed  both  to  be  derived  from  Christ  as  Me- 
diator. This  opinion  is  undoubtedly  erroneous.  For,  though  the 
civil  magistracy  as  well  as  other  things  are  given  to  Christ  as  Media- 
tor, to  be  made  subservient  to  the  good  of  his  church  ;  yet,  its  be- 
ing is  not  like  that  of  the  gospel  ministry,  from  him  as  Mediator  ; 
nor  is  the  object  about  which  it  ought  to  be  exercised,  like  the  ob- 
ject of  the  gospel  ministry,  the  right  administration  of  the  ordinan- 
ces which  Christ  as  Mediator  hath  instituted  ;  nor  is  the  imme- 
diate and  proper  end  of  it,  like  that  of  the  gospel  ministry,  the  sal- 
vation of  souls,  or  the  advancement  of  men's  spiritual  and  eternal  in- 
terests. 

Rup.  The  native  consequences  of  the  erroneous  tenet  you  have 
mentioned  are  such  as  these  :  That  magistracy  does  not  flow  from 
God  considered  only  as  the  Creator  and  moral  G-overnor  of  the  world  ; 
that  the  institution  of  magistracy  does  not  belong  to  the  law  of  na- 
ture ;  that  civil  magistrates,  with  their  emoluments,  their  penalties 
and  grandeur,  belong  to  the  mediatorial  kingdom  of  Christ ;  and  that 
either  there  are  no  magistrates  among  the  heathens,  or  the  mediato- 
rial kingdom  of  Christ,  in  respect  of  one  part  of  it,  namely,  magis- 
tracy, is  visible  among  them.  But  the  truth  is,  Christ's  mediatorial 
kingdom  is  not  of  this  world.  Magistracy,  as  well  as  other  things 
belonging  to  the  kingdom  of  Providence,  are  put  into  Christ's  hand, 
to  be  ordered  in  subserviency  to  the  good  of  his  church.  But  this 
ordering  does  not  alter  the  nature  of  these  things,  or  the  tendency 
of  them  to  their  natural  ends.  They  are  still,  in  themselves,  mere 
worldly  things.  Magistracy,  for  example,  is  the  same  secular  insti- 
tution among  christians,  as  among  heathens.  And  the  mediatorial 
kingdom  of  Christ  is  visible  among  the  former,  and  not  at  all  among 
the  latter. 

Alex.  I  have  heard,  that  these  people  charged  the  Associate 
Presbytery  with  declining  from  the  cause  for  which  some  zealous 
Presbyterians  suffered  persecution,  in  the  reign  of  Charles  the  Sec- 
ond. Hume,  in  his  history,  represents  them  as  fanatics  and  enthusi- 
asts ;  though  he  allows,  that  they  were  treated  with  unjustifiable  se- 


408  ALEXANDEE  AND  RUFUS. 

verity.  They  were  certainly  pious  people.  Did  their  opinion  con- 
cerning the  civil  magistrate,  agree  with  that  of  those  now  called  the 
Reformed  Body  ? 

RuF.  That  these  martyrs  should  be  represented  in  an  odious  or 
contemptible  light,  by  such  a  writer  as  David  Mume,  is  not  to  be  won- 
dered at.     For,  to  use  the  words  of  an  excellent  poet : 

A  Patriot's  blood 
May,  for  a  time  insure  to  bis  lov'd  land, 
The  sweets  of  liberty  and  equal  laws  : 
But  martyrs  struggle  for  a  brighter  prize, 
And  win  it  with  more  pain.    Their  blood  is  shed 
In  confirmation  of  the  noblest  claim, 
Our  claim  to  feed  upon  immortal  truth, 
To  walk  with  God,  to  be  divinely  free, 
To  soar,  and  to  anticipate  the  skies. 
Yet  few  remember  them.    They  liv'd  imknown, 
Till  persecution  dragg'd  them  into  fame. 
And  chas'd  them  up  to  heaven.    Their  ashes  flew 
No  marble  tells  us  whither.    With  their  names 
No  bard  embalms  and  sanctifies  his  song ; 
A.nd  history,  so  warm  on  meaner  themes, 
Is  cold  on  this.* 

The  martyrs  under  Charles  the  Second,  though  they  disowned  the 
ecclesiastical  supremacy,  or  the  headship  over  the  national  church, 
with  which  he  had  been  invested  by  the  parliament  in  1661  and  1662, 
yet  acknowledged  his  eivil  authority,  and  obeyed  him  in  things  law- 
ful, till  about  the  year  1679.  Ten  of  these  martyrs,  who  suffered  in 
1666,  delivered  a  joint  testimony;  in  which  they  say,  ''  We  are  con- 
demned by  men,  and  esteemed  by  many  as  rebels  against  the  King, 
whose  authority  we  acknowledge."  Another  testimony,  by  some  of 
the  former  ten,  has  these  words:  '^We  declare  in  the  presence  of 
God,  before  whom  we  are  now  ready  to  appear,  that  we  did  not  in- 
tend to  rebel  against  the  king  and  his  just  authority ;  whom  we  ac- 
knowledge for  our  lawful  sovereign,  "f  All,  that  are  acquainted  with 
the  history  of  the  persecution  in  that  period,  know,  that  when  the 
sufferers  were  asked.  Whether  they  owned  the  king's  authority,  the 
interrogators  meant  to  include  the  authority  which  was  given  him  by 
the  act  of  parliament  in  spiritual  matters  ;  and  that  if  the  sufferers 
had  answered  in  the  affirmative,  they  would  have  been  considered  as 
consenting  to  the  spiritual  authority  which  he  claimed.  Even  in  the 
latter  part  of  this  period  of  persecution,  it  is  evident,  that  the  prin- 
cipal reason  of  their  answering  that  cjuestion  in  the  negative,  was, 
that  they  understood  the  king's  authority,  which  they  were  then  re- 
quired to  acknowledge,  as  including  his  ecclesiastical  supremacy. 
"  The  main  cause  of  my  suffering,"  said  Mr.  Cargil,  who  was  put  to 
death  in  1681,  'Ms  my  not  acknowledging  the  present  authority,  as 

*  Cowper's  Task.  f  Naphtali,  pages  216,  221. 


ALEXANDEK  AND  KUFUS.  409 

it  is  established  in  the  supremacy  and  explanatory  act,  The  ma^gis- 
tracy,  which  I  have  rejected,  is  that  which  was  invested  with  Christ's 
power."  When  he  mentioned  the  explanatory  act,  he  said,  ''he 
meant,  that  the  act,  which,  in  explaining  the  king's  supremacy,  gives 
him  a  right  to  the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ,  is  against  right.  "=^  In 
the  year  1684,  John  Campbell,  being  asked  by  a  lieutenant  colonel 
Windram,  Whether  he  would  pray  for  the  king  ?  answered,  that  he 
both  did  and  would  pray  for  the  king,  that  the  Lord  would  give 
him  a  godly  life  here,  and  glory  hereafter."  The  colonel  said.  That 
is  not  enough  :  you  must  pray  for  Charles  the  Second,  as  he  is  su- 
preme over  all  causes,  ecclesiastic,  as  w^ll  as  civil.  John  replied, 
"that,  in  his  opinion,  that  was  praying  for  him  as  the  head  of  the 
church,  a  title,  which  belonged  to  Christ  alone,  "f  So  that  it  ap- 
pears, that  the  sufferers  would  have  acknowledged  his  civil  authority, 
and  would  have  continued  to  obey  him  in  things  lawful,  notwithstand- 
ing his  supremacy  ;  if  he  had  not  required  their  owning  that  supre- 
macy and  obedience  in  unlawful  things  ;  or  if  he  had  not  acted  the 
tyrant,  exercising  all  sorts  of  cruelty  upon  them,  merely  because  they 
refused  to  make  acknowledgments,  which  it  was  unlawful  for  them  to 
make. 

Alex.  Those  who  are  now  termed  Covenanters,  deem  it  inconsis- 
tent with  the  obligation  of  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant,  to  own 
any  other  as  lawful  magistrates,  than  such  as  have  a  due  measure  of 
scriptural  qualifications. 

RuF.  The  greater  the  measure  which  any  magistrate  possesses  of 
of  these  qualifications,  he  is,  no  doubt^  the  better.  But  if,  by  a  due 
measure  of  them,  be  meant  all  that  the  scriptures,  as  the  rule  of  duty, 
requires,  whoever  expects  to  see  a  magistrate  possessed  of  such  a 
measure  of  these  qualifications. 

Thinks  what  ne'er  was,  nor  is,  nor  e'er  shall  be. 

But  with  regard  to  the  Solemn  League,  it  contains  an  engagement 
to  preserve  and  defend  the  civil  magistrate,  in  defence  of  the  true 
religion  and  liberties ;  that  is,  an  engagement  to  own  and  obey  him, 
so  far  as  is  consistent  with  the  preservation  of  the  true  religion  and 
civil  liberty.  But  this  is  quite  different  from  an  engagement  to  ac- 
knowledge no  other  as  a  lawful  magistrate,  to  whom  obedience  in 
lawful  things  is  due,  than  such  as  profess  the  true  religion  sworn  to 
in  the  league  : — This  appears,  both  from  the  doctrine  and  the  exam- 
ple, of  those  who  first  entered  into  it.  What  their  doctrine  on  this 
subject  was,  we  learn  from  the  Confession  of  Faith,  which,  in  pursu- 
ance of  the  design  of  the  Solemn  League,  was  composed  by  the  West- 
minster Assembly,  and  adopted  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church 
of  Scotland,  in  164t.     For,  according  to  that  confession,  ''  Infidelity 

*  Crookshanks'  History,  part  2d.  chap.  5.  t  Ibid.  chap.  9. 


410  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

or  difference  in  religion,  does  not  make  void  the  magistrate's  just  and 
legal  authority ;  nor  free  the  people  from  their  due  obedience  to 
him."  Nor  is  the  magistrate  here  excepted,  who  has  been  set  up  by 
the  will  of  the  body  politic,  where  the  light  of  the  gospel  has  been 
generally  diffused. 

How  agreeable  this  doctrine  concerning  the  civil  magistrate,  is  to 
the  engagement  in  the  Solemn  League,  appears  from  a  passage  which 
I  shall  now  read,  of  the  Apologetical  Relation,  the  author  of  which* 
had  a  most  accurate  acquaintance  with  this  subject.  "  The  Covenan- 
ters do  not  say,  that  they  are  never  bound  to  defend  the  king's  au- 
thority, but  when  he  is  actually  promoting  and  advancing  the  work 
of  God,  according  to  his  full  power  and  place  ;  nor  do  they  say,  that 
when  he  opposeth  the  work  of  God,  that  they  are  at  liberty  to  destroy 
his  person,  or  to  spoil  and  rob  him  of  his  just  power  and  authority. 
And  therefore,  both  that  clause  in  the  covenant,  and  their  proceed- 
ing may  be  abundantly  justified,  without  clashing  with  the  confes- 
sions of  the  Protestant  Reformed  churches,  or  of  their  own  ;  for  they 
still  acknowledge,  that  difference  in  religion  does  not  make  void  the 
magistrate's  just  and  legal  authority,  nor  free  the  people  from  sub- 
jection." 

The  same  thing  is  evident,  from  the  example  of  those  who  first 
entered  into  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant.  For  they  acknow- 
ledged Charles  the  First  as  their  lawful  king,  and  professed  their  wil- 
lingness to  obey  him  in  all  his  lawful  commands  :  though  he  still  de- 
clared, that  he  reckoned  himself  bound  in  conscience  to  defend  pre- 
lacy, and  even  his  ecclesiastical  supremacy. 

The  sufferers  under  Charles  the  Second  disowned,  as  has  been  al- 
ready observed,  his  ecclesiastical  supremacy  or  headship  over  the 
church  ;  but  we  have  no  reason  to  think,  that  they  would  ever  have 
disowned  his  civil  authority,  if  he  had  not  tyrannically  required  their 
acknowledgment  of  subjection  to  that  supremacy,  and  also  their  re- 
nunciation of  the  Solemn  League,  which  they  had  sworn  to  the  Most 
High  God,  torturing  and  putting  them  to  death,  when  they  refused 
obedience  to  such  unlawful  commands. 

Alex.  One  thing,  in  which  it  seems  hard  to  justify  these  people,  is 
their  holding  it  lawful  to  pay  taxes  to  our  government,  and  to  take 
the  benefit  of  its  courts  of  justice^  while  they  account  it  an  unlawful 
government.  An  excuse  for  the  payment  of  tribute  to  such  a  govern- 
ment, is  implied  in  these  words  of  their  testimony  published  in  Scot- 
land :  "  They  testify  against  a  direct  and  active,  a  free  and  voluntary 
paying  of  tribute,''  unto  the  present  government,  "  as  unto  the  ordi- 
nance of  God,  particularly,  when  these  dues  are  required  as  a  tessera 
of  loyalty  to  such. ''f 

RuF.  I  cannot  see  any  solid  ground  for  the  distinction  in  the  words 
you  have  cited  :  for,  if  paying  tribute  to  the  present  government  be 

*  Mr.  Brown  of  Wamphray.        t  Testimony  of  the  Reformed  Presbytery. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  411 

law-ful,  then  it  is  plain,  that  it  should  be  done  directly  and  volun- 
tarily. On  the  other  hand,  if  it  be  sinful,  in  the  case  as  circumstanced, 
it  ought  not  to  be  done  at  all ;  not  even  in  an  indirect  and  involun- 
tary manner. 

Alex.  They  sometimes  quote  Rom.  xiii.  5,  ''  Ye  must  needs  be 
subject  not  only  for  wrath,  but  also  for  conscience  sake  :"  as  if  those 
who  hold  the  present  government  to  be  unlawful,  and  therefore  will 
not  pay  taxes  thereto  from  a  principle  of  conscience,  may  yet,  with- 
out sin,  part  with  their  money  or  goods  for  that  purpose, /o7'  wrath, 
or  from  the  fear  of  punishment. 

KuF.  The  plain  meaning  of  this  text  is,  that  we  ought  to  be  sub- 
ject to  the  civil  magistrate  ;  not  only,  as  the  worst  of  men  often  are, 
from  the  fear  of  punishment,  but  also,  as  christians  ought  to  be,  from 
a  principle  of  conscience.  The  apostle  Is  so  far  from  allowing  chris- 
tians to  be  subject  to  the  civil  magistrate  for  wrath,  without  being  so 
for  conscience  sake,  that  he  enjoins  what  is  directly  contrary,  that 
they  should  be  no  further  subject  to  him  for  wrath,  than  they  are  so 
for  conscience  sake  :  for  the  subjection  here  meant,  is  the  subjection 
inculcated  in  the  preceding  verses  ;  subjection  to  the  civil  magistrate 
as  the  ordinance  of  God,  as  the  minister  of  God  for  good;  that  is  a 
subjection  to  him  for  conscience  sake  ;  no  other  subjection  being  ap- 
proved by  the  apostle. 

It  is  improper  to  represent  the  payment  of  a  tax  as  being  only  the 
circumstance  of  parting  with  money  ;  while  a  tax  is  demanded  as  a 
just  debt  due  to  a  lawful  government  for  the  protection  it  affords  us ; 
just  as  a  debt  is  demanded  by  the  proprietor  of  a  house  or  land,  from 
a  tenant  who  has  occupied  it  for  some  time.  It  must  be  as  unjust  to 
pay  a  tax  to  one  who  ought  not  to  be  acknowledged  as  a  lawful 
magistrate,  as  it  would  be  to  pay  the  rent  due  for  a  house  or  land 
to  one  who  we  certainly  know  is  not,  truly,  but  only  pretends  to  be 
the  proprietor  thereof.  But  the  countenance  given  in  the  former 
case,  to  an  usurpation  of  the  magistrate's  office,  is  more  criminal, 
as  being  more  extensively  pernicious,  than  the  countenance  which 
is  given  in  the  latter,  to  the  unjust  claim  made  to  a  house  or  piece 
of  land. 

Alex.  In  applying  the  text  before  mentioned  to  his  subject,  they 
often  say.  We  pay  taxes  to  an  unscriptural  government  on  the  same 
principle  on  which  we  may  give  a  robber  a  part  of  our  property  to 
save  the  remainder.  It  is  a  pity  that  they  cannot  find  a  more  decent 
simile  than  this  ;  for  it  seems,  at  first  view,  shocking  to  common 
sense  to  represent  a  government,  which  it  cannot  be  denied,  answers 
the  end,  in  a  great  measure,  of  good  government  in  securing  the  ad- 
ministration of  justice,  and  in  protecting  the  citizens  in  the  enjoyment 
of  their  natural  rights,  as  no  more  entitled  to  any  compensation  than 
a  band  of  robbers. 

Rur.  A  robber's  demand  of  a  person's  money  is  not  to  be  com- 


412  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

plied  with,  unless  the  compliance  be  a  lawful  mean  of  avoiding  a 
greater  evil ;  and  then  it  is  to  be  consented  to  for  conscience  sake. 
That  it  is  a  lawful  mean,  appears  from  this  consideration,  that  the 
robber's  demand  requires  no  unlawful  acknowledgment ;  such  as  the 
acknowledgment  of  the  robber's  moral  right  to  the  money  he  demands; 
for  he  makes  no  pretension  to  any  such  right ;  but  only  to  a  superior 
physical  power  of  taking  violent  possession.  But  the  demand  of  a 
part  of  our  property  upon  a  moral  ground,  namely,  as  a  tax  to  which 
a  lawful  magistrate  only  is  entitled,  is  a  very  different  case.  A  per- 
son's giving  his  money  to  the  robber,  is  an  acknowledgment  of  the 
superior  physical  power,  on  the  ground  of  which  it  was  demanded  ; 
but  the  giving  of  the  money,  demanded  as  a  tax  due  to  a  lawful  mag- 
istrate, is  an  acknowledgment  of  the  moral  right,  upon  the  ground 
of  which  it  is  demanded.  If  he  who  demands  the  tribute  be  no  law- 
ful magistrate,  but  an  usuper  or  unlawful  ruler ;  then,  it  is  sinful  to 
comply  w^ith  the  demand,  while  he  makes  it  upon  the  ground  of  a  pre- 
tended moral  right.  We  are  to  give  no  money  to  support  an  unlaw- 
ful ruler.  As  we  are  not  to  give  it  for  conscience  sake ;  so  we  are 
not  to  give  it  for  wrath,  or  from  the  fear  of  punishment ;  for  we  should 
rather  suffer  than  sin. 

Alex.  They  say  further,  We  may  do  all  things  commanded  by  the 
constituted  authorities,  which  are  in  themselves  right  and  lawful,  not 
connected  with  unlawful  circumstances,  not  because  they  are  com- 
manded by  legitimate  authority,  which  is  the  true  tessera  of  loyalty  ; 
but  either  because  the  moral  law  requires  them,  or  because  they  may 
be  compelled  to  do  them  by  physical  force. 

KuF.  There  are  several  things  in  the  practice  of  these  people  which 
cannot  well  be  denied  to  be  connected  with  circumstances  which  are 
inconsistent  with  their  opinion  concerning  the  unlawfulness  of  the 
present  civil  government.  The  payment  of  taxes,  for  example,  is 
connected  with  the  circumstances  of  their  being  required  l)y  the  au- 
thority of  the  government.  The  ground  of  this  demand  cannot  be 
physical  force ;  because  the  physical  force  of  government  depends 
on  the  taxes  that  support  it ;  and  therefore,  government's  demand 
of  taxes,  cannot  depend  on  its  physical  force.  The  whole  reason  of 
this  demand,  is  the  moral  right  which  a  lavrful  government  has  to  be 
supported.  Hence,  the  payment  of  taxes  necessarily  implies  an  ac- 
knowledgment of  that  right.  To  this  purpose,  the  apostle  says, 
"  For  this  cause  pay  ye  taxes  to  magistrates ;  for  they  are  public 
ministers  of  God,"  Rom.  xiii.  6.  Hence  it  is  evident,  that  when 
taxes  are  paid  for  the  cause  or  reason  for  which  the  apostle  directs 
us  to  pay  them,  (and  whenever  christians  pay  them,  it  should  be  for 
this  reason,)  they  must  be  a  true  tessera  or  token  of  loyalty.  In 
bringing  a  law-suit  against  any,  a  person  acknowledges  that  the  court, 
before  which  he  brings  the  suit,  has  a  just  authority  to  determine  it. 
If  the  authority  of  the  court  be  unlawful,  all  its  judicial  proceedings 


ALEXANDEE  AND  EUFUS.  413 

are  unlawful.  To  submit  a  cause  to  be  tried  and  decided  by  such  a 
court,  is  to  sin  against  God;  and  also,  to  tempt  the  judge  and  jury 
to  sin  against  him.  Even  a  person's  taking  an  oath  before  any  of 
our  civil  courts,  is  connected  with  circumstances  which  imply  subjec- 
tion to  its  authority,  and  consequently  an  acknowledgment  of  it ;  such 
as  the  taking  of  the  oath  by  the  command  of  the  court,  in  answer  to 
a  summons,  bearing  the  stamp  of  the  civil  authority,  and  specifying 
time  and  place,  and  the  cause  depending.  The  buying  and  selhng  of 
houses  and  lands  are  connected  with  an  acknowledgment  of  the  civil 
authority,  which  grants  the  titles  by  which  property  in  them  is  held, 
and  by  which  it  is  transferred.  An  unlawful  government  cannot  give 
a  lawful  title  to  property.  Even  the  receiving  of  the  money  of  any 
government,  as  lawful  money,  implies  an  acknowledgment  of  the 
legitimacy  of  the  government  that  issues  it.  An  unlawful  govern- 
ment cannot  make  a  lawful  national  currency.  Hence,  our  Lord 
called  for  a  denarius  or  Roman  penny,  in  order  to  determine  the  ques- 
tion about  Csesar's  title  to  tribute. 

It  may  be  observed,  that  the  passage  you  just  now  recited,  seems 
exceptionable,  as  it  implies,  that  there  are  right  things  which  persons 
are  to  do,  from  the  fear  of  being  compelled  to  do  them  by  physical 
force,  while  they  are  not  bound  to  do  them,  because  they  are  required 
by  the  moral  law.  But  certainly  we  must  allow  the  moral  law,  the 
law  of  God,  to  be  a  perfect  rule;  and  therefore,  it  is  evident,  that 
there  is  nothing  right,  nothing  that  ought  to  be  done,  which  that  law 
does  not  require.  The  moral  law,  no  doubt,  requires  things  to  be 
done  in  some  circumstances,  which  it  does  not  require  to  be  done  in 
other  circumstances.  But  in  every  case,  as  it  is  circumstanced,  the 
moral  law  determines  what  is  duty,  and  requires  it ;  and  whatever 
is  duty  ought  to  be  done,  because  the  law  requires  it.  Farther,  it 
may  be  observed,  that  according  to  this  distinction,  there  is  one  class 
of  right  things  which  persons  are  to  do,  because  they  may  be  compel- 
led to  do  them  by  physical  force  ;  and  another  class  of  such  things 
which  are  to  be  done,  because  the  moral  law  requires  them.  But,  in 
truth,  that  which  is  always  to  determine  what  ought  to  be  done,  is 
the  moral  law,  the  only  rule  of  duty,  and  not  motives  or  external  oc- 
casions suggesting  motives.  It  is  certainly  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  that  we  should  not  make  the  impulse  of  any  passion,  of 
hope  or  fear,  of  love  or  hatred,  the  ^standard  by  which  w^e  are  to  de- 
termine any  act  to  be  sin  or  duty.  The  revealed  will  of  God,  and 
nothing  else,  is  that  standard.  These  two  questions,  What  things 
ought  to  be  done,  and  what  should  move  us  to  do  them,  are  always 
formally  distinct,  and  require  different  answers. 

§  63.  Alex.  Have  not  this  body  lately  published  a  new  statement 
of  their  profession,  entitled,  Reformation  Principles  Exhibited  ? 

RuF.  Yes.  I  suppose,  however,  they  will  not  disapprove  a  refer- 
ence to  the  former  testimony  as  a  declaration  of  their  genuine  tenets. 


414 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 


With  regard  to  the  new  work,  of  which  you  speak,  it  may  not  be  im- 
proper to  observe,  that  the  Seceders  have  reason  to  complain  of  the 
first  part  of  it,  as  misrepresenting  some  of  their  principles.  This  will 
appear  by  reading  a  short  paper,  which  I  have  written,  containing  a 
contrast,  in  some  particulars,  between  the  statement  which  the  Sece- 
ders themselves  give  of  their  principles,  and  that  which  is  given  in 
this  publication. 


Statement  given  by  Seceders. 

1.  Mere  usurpers  can  have  no  lawful  author- 
ity :  and  if  they  shall  acquire  the  consent  of 
the  people,  whether  expressed  or  tacit,  they 
then  cease  to  be  such,  and  are  invested  with 
authority,  whereunto  God  commands  subjec- 
tion and  obedience  in  matters  lawful.  Again, 
in  order  to  render  one  an  habitual  tyrant,  it  is 
at  least  necessary  that  he  leave  ruling  by  just 
laws,  that  he  be  engaged  in  war  against  the 
lives,  or  invading  and  overturning  the  avowed 
liberties  and  privileges  of  the  nation  ;  as  was 
the  case  in  the  persecuting  times  before  the 
Kevolution.  It  cannot  be  supposed,  that  such 
a  person  has  any  real  consent  of  the  nation  to 
rule  ;  and  therefore  he  can  have  no  lawful  au- 
thority. However  quietly  one  may  be  obliged 
to  live  under  usurpers  or  habitual  tyrants  ;  yet 
there  should  be  no  acknowledgment  of  their 
authority  as  binding  upon  the  conscience.  The 
presbytery's  principle  of  subjection  and  obe- 
dience doth  only  respect  things  lawful,  and  is 
not  at  all  inconistent  with  any  self-defence 
that  is  necessary,  lawful  and  expedient,  ac- 
cording to  the  word  of  God  and  right  reason  ; 
such  as  our  worthy  ancestors  endeavored  at 
Pentland  and  Bothwell.  Yea,  there  is  no  man- 
ner of  inconsistency  between  being  in  a  pos- 
ture of  self-defence  against  particular  injuries 
by  a  magistrate,  and  an  owning,  at  the  same 
time,  his  title  and  authority  in  what  lawful 
commands  he  may  impose.— Display  of  the  Se- 
cessioti  Testimony.  Vol.  1,  page  290. 

The  Associate  Presbytery  and  those  who  ad- 
here to  them,  do  not  hold  magistracy,  or  its 
lawfulness,  to  be  founded  on  the  providential, 
but  on  the  preceptive  will  of  God.  They  have 
nothing  to  say  in  defence  of  that  magistracy 
which  is  merely  providential ;  though  not  a 
little  they  have  to  advance,  in  proof  that  the 
office  of  every  magistrate,  whom  a  people  have 
chosen,  and  whom  they  acknowledge  to  be 
invested  with  civil  authority  over  them,  is 
founded  on  the  preceptive  will  of  God,  and  is 
agreeable  to  his  law,  in  its  rise  and  origin.— 
Beview  of  the  Anti-governnient  Schoyie^  pages  34 
a7id  35. 

2.  As  it  was  once  a  peculiar  duty  of  the  Jew- 
ish nation ;  so  it  is  peculiarly  incumbent  upon 
every  civil  state,  whereinto  Christianity  is  in- 


Statement  given  in  Reforma- 
tion Principles  Exhibited 

1.  The  Seceders  condemned 
all  distinction  between  such  ru- 
lers as  happened,  in  Divine  Prov- 
idence, to  have  the  power  of  a 
nation  upon  unlawful  principles, 
and  such  as  ruled  by  Divine  ap- 
probation :  the  only  question 
which  they  would  permit  a  chris- 
tian to  ask  is,  in  relation  to  the 
matter  of  fact.  Is  there  any  per- 
son actually  in  poAver  ? 

The  Scotch  Seceders  exceeded 
the  University  of  Oxford  itself 
in  maintaining  the  doctrine  of 
passive  obedience.  They  deny, 
that  there  is  any  difference  as  to 
lawfulness  between  one  govern- 
ment and  another — Heform: 
Pnnc.  Exhib.  Part  Ist^  yage  113. 


2.  The  Seceders  maintain  that 
nations,  as  such,  are  not  bound 
to  acknowledge  Christ  or  his  re- 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 


415 


Statement  given  by  Seceders. 

troduced,  to  study  and  bring  to  pass,  that 
civil  government  among  them,  in  all  the  ap- 
purtenances of  its  constitution  and  adminis- 
tration, run  in  an  agreeableness  to  the  word 
of  God,  and  to  the  interests  of  the  true  reli- 
gion and  reformation  of  the  church  ;  as  oth- 
erwise they  cannot  truly  prosper  in  their  civil 
concerns,  nor  be  enriched  by  the  blessings  of 
the  gospel. 

The  whole  people,  adjoining  themselves  to 
the  true  church,  should  approve  themselves 
to  be  true  members  thereof;  and,  considered 
in  their  conjunct  and  public  capacity,  (as  thus 
only  the  matter  is  competent  unto  them) 
should,  by  their  deed  of  civil  constitution, 
provide,  that  their  magistrates  be  obliged  to 
concur  in  the  same  true  religion  and  reforma- 
tion, and  to  rule  them  by  laws  nowise  preju- 
dicial, but  serviceable  thereto— i^i.s/j^a?/  of  the 
Secession  Testimmiy,  Vol.  I.  page  2S0. 

3.  What  the  apostle  ascribes  unto  magis- 
trates, (viz.  their  being  ministers  of  God  for 
good,  being  not  a  terror  to  good  works,  but 
to  evil,)  is,  in  some  measure,  competent  to  all 
such  in  every  nation  or  state.  But  the  advan- 
tage lies  very  far  on  the  side  of  such  as  have 
occasion  to  exercise  their  office  for  promoting 
the  church's  public  good ;  while,  at  the  same 
time,  they  are  privileged  with,  (and  endeavor 
to  discharge  their  other  special  business,  as 
well  as  this,  according  to)  the  full  discovery 
which  God's  word  hath  made  of  those  natural 
principles  that  comprehend  the  due  exercise 
of  their  office,  as  well  as  its  institution  and 
end.  The  christian  magistrate  ought  to  de- 
termine himself,  not  merely  by  natural,  but 
also  by  revealed  or  christian  principles — Dis- 
plarj  of  the  Seces.   Test.  Vol  1,  pages  312,  313. 

4.  That  our  Lord's  Mediatory  government 
and  administration  doth  extend  to  all  outward 
things  in  the  world  of  nature  and  providence, 
in  so  far  as  these  things  are  supernaturally  or- 
dered unto  supernatural  ends,  in  the  spiritual 
advantage  of  his  church  and  people,  or  so  far 
as  ordered  in  the  channel  of  love  and  favor  to 
them,  with  a  subserviency  to  the  purposes  and 
glory  of  tree  grace  in  their  salvation  ;  and  that 
all  such  orderings  of  otitward  things  are  the 
proper  fruit  of  Christ's  purchase ;  and  that  all 
these  outward  things,  as  considered  in  the  for- 
mality or  channel  of  these  gracious  orderings, 
do  hold  of  Christ  and  his  kingdom,  as  Media- 
tor ;  all  this  is  heartily  agreed  to — Display  of 
the  Secess.  Test.  Vol  2,  page  299. 

5.  The  charge,  brought  against  the  Synod's 
act  upon  the  head  of  universal  redemption,  of 
denying,that  believers  themselves  receive  their 
common  favors  as  benefits  of  Christ's  pup- 


Statement  GIVEN  IN  Reforma- 
tion Principles  Exhibited. 

ligion ;  and  that  magistrates 
have  nothing  to  do  with  Chris- 
tianity.—iftid 


3.  Seceders  maintain,  that  Di- 
vine Revelation  is  not  the  rule 
b}''  which  men  are  to  act  in  their 
civil  constitutions  and  laws. 
Ibid,  pageslli,  115. 


4.  The  Seceders  maintain,  that 
Jesus  Christ  does  not,  as  Media- 
tor, govern  the  world.  Befo^'m. 
Fnn.  page  115. 


5.  The  Seceders  maintain,  that 
the  Redeemer  has  not  purchased 
temporal  benefits  for  the  saints. 
Ibid.  i%e  115. 


416 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS, 


Statement  given  by  Seceders. 

chase,  is  a  gross  calumny.  For  the  said  arti- 
cle is  so  far  from  excluding  common  favors 
which  believers  receive,  that  it  dotli  not  ex- 
clude their  common  trials  and  crosses  from 
heing  among  the  benefits  of  Christ's  purchase 
to  them.  Only  these  things  are  so,  not  as  they 
stand  in  their  earthly  condition.  But  as  they 
are  sanctified  through  the  new  covenant,  and 
so  intromitted  with  by  faith.  The  common 
benefits  of  life,  in  respect  of  the  peculiar  con- 
veyance of  them  to  believers,  through  Christ 
as  Mediator,  in  the  channel  of  new  covenant 
promises,  with  a  new  covenant  blessing  upon 
them,  are  not  received  by  their  fingers,  but  by 
their  faith — Ai:)peyidlx  to  the  Act  of  the  Associate 
Synod  concerninq  Arminian  errors  upon  the  head 
of  Universal  Redemption.     Pages  34.  35. 

6.  Seceders  believe  that  the  world  stands 
on  purpose,  that  the  covenant  of  grace  may  be 
exhibited  and  carried  into  execution  ;  though 
they  do  not  say,  that  it  stands  for  this  pur- 
pose only  :  because  the  standing  of  the  world 
is  also  necessary  in  order  to  the  execution  of 
the  covenant  of  works  ;  for  which,  as  well  as 
for  the  execution  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  the 
truth  of  God  is  engaged — Review  of  the  Anti- 
government  Scheme.     Pages  14,  15. 


Statement  given  in  Reforma- 
tion Principles  Exhibited. 


6.  The  Seceders  maintain,  that 
the  world  stands,  not  on  purpose 
to  exhibit  the  system  of  grace ; 
but  in  order  to  bring  into  being 
the  children  of  Adam,  that  they 
might  be  punished  by  the  curse 
of  the  covenant  of  works.  Ibid. 


When  we  endeavor  to  correct  the  errors  of  any,  we  should  beware 
of  imputing  opinions  to  them  which  they  do  not  hold.  In  this,  as  in 
many  other  controversies,  the  opposite  parties  often  misunderstand 
one  another.  It  should  be  the  concern  of  both  parties  to  discern  the 
snare  that  keeps  them  asunder,  while  both  are  professing  adherence, 
in  other  respects,  to  the  same  testimony  for  a  covenanted  reforma- 
tion. On  this  subject,  I  shall  only  add  one  remark  :  Under  the  New 
Testament  dispensation,  the  Lord's  people  are  dispersed  through  the 
world  as  pilgrims  and  strangers,  under  a  great  variety  of  magistrates  ; 
and  being  always  a  minority,  have  little  or  no  share  in  the  choice  of 
these  magistrates.  On  this  account,  it  might  have  been  expected, 
that  if  the  Holy  Spirit  had  foreseen  that  most  of  these  magistrates 
would  be  unlawful,  or  such  as  could  not  be  submitted  to  or  obeyed  in 
their  lawful  commands,  without  sin,  he  would  have  given  his  people 
very  particular  warning  of  this  danger.  On  the  contrary,  there  is  a 
deep  silence  through  the  whole  scripture,  as  to  this  matter.  We  are, 
indeed,  forbidden  to  walk  after  the  commandment  of  rulers  in  any 
thing  unlawful,  or  in  the  imposition  of  human  devices  in  religious 
worship.  But  there  are  no  warnings  in  scripture  against  submitting 
to  and  obeying  the  lawful  commands  of  the  magistrates  of  any  coun- 
try, who  have  been  chosen  and  are  acknowledged  as  such  by  the  peo- 
ple there. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  417 

§  64.  Alex.  Another  subject,  on  which  I  wished  have  to  some 
conversation  at  this  time,  is  the  controversy  among  the  Seceders,  about 
a  religious  clause  in  some  burgess  oaths.  Though  we,  in  America, 
are  not  concerned  in  these  oaths,  yet  the  dispute  concerning  this  mat- 
ter is  interesting,  as  it  must  necessarily  occupy  a  conspicuous  place 
in  the  history  of  the  christian  church. 

RuF.  The  importance  of  a  controversy  is  to  be  estimated  not  only 
by  the  occasion  which  may  often  seem  trivial,  but  by  the  manner  in 
which  it  is  conducted,  by  its  bearing  on  other  subjects,  and  by  its 
consequences.  It  is  certain,  that  a  great  deal  of  truth,  both  doc- 
trinal and  historical,  was  either  denied  or  maintained  by  the  parties 
in  this  dispute.  Instances  of  Divine  mercy  in  upholding  any  in 
a  steadfast  adherence  to  their  witnessing  profession,  ought  to  be  re- 
corded. 

The  contested  words  of  the  clause  in  some  burgess  oaths,  are  these  : 
"  Here  I  protest  before  God,  and  your  lordships,  that  I  profess  and 
allow  with  my  heart  the  true  religion,  presently  professed  within  this 
realm,  and  authorised  by  the  laws  thereof : — I  shall  abide  thereat, 
and  defend  the  same  to  my  life's  end,  and  renounce  the  Roman  reli- 
gion called  Papistry." 

Alex.  Many  think,  that  the  Seceding  ministers  should  not  have 
meddled  with  this  oath,  and  that  it  was  a  thing  they  had  no  business 
with. 

Ru^.  In  the  year  1744,  the  Associate  Presbytery,  being  consider- 
ably increased,  agreed  to  divide  themselves  into  three  presbyteries, 
which  were  to  compose  the  Associate  Synod.  That  Synod,  having 
met  in  March  1745,  it  was  proposed,  that  as  the  members  had  agreed 
to  set  about  public  covenanting  in  their  several  congregations,  so  they 
should  endeavor  to  remove  any  public  bars  that  might  be  found  to 
their  proceeding  in  that  work.  It  was  then  found,  that  the  case  of 
some  of  their  people,  who  had  sworn  a  burgess  oath,  having  the  said 
clause  in  it,  might  be  such  a  bar.  The  Synod's  considering  this  case, 
and  coming  to  a  just  decision  of  it,  coul^  no  more  be  reckoned  unne- 
cessary, than  the  duty  of  guarding  themselves  and  their  people  against 
being  involved  in  the  guilt  of  swearing  contradictory  oaths,  and  con- 
sequently, of  swearing  falsely.  They  could  have  no  business  which 
was,  in  their  circumstances,  at  that  time,  more  proper  or  more  ne- 
cessary. 

§  65.  After  much  reasoning  on  the  subject,  they  came  to  the  deci- 
sion, which  I  shall  now  read.  "  The  Synod  find,  that  the  swearing  of 
the  religious  clause  of  some  burgess  oaths,''  which  was  formerly  re- 
cited, "  by  any  under  their  inspection,  as  the  said  clause  comes  neces- 
sarily in  this  period  to  be  used  and  applied,  does  not  agree  to  the 
present  state  and  circumstances  of  the  testimony  for  religion  and  re- 
formation, which  this  Synod,  with  those  under  their  inspecti-on,  are 
maintaining ;  particularly,  that  it  does  not  agree  to,  nor  consist  with, 
27 


418  ALEXANDEE  AND  EUFUS. 

an  entering  into  the  bond  for  renewing  our  solemn  covenants ;  and 
that,  therefore,  those  of  the  secession  cannot  further,  with  a  safe  con- 
science, and  without  sin,  swear  any  burgess  oath  with  the  said  reli- 
gious clause ;  while  matters,  with  reference  to  the  profession  and  set- 
tlement of  religion,  continue  in  such  circumstances  as  at  present. 
Moreover,  the  Synod  find,  that  burgesses  of  the  secession,  who  are 
already  concerned  in  such  oaths,  should  be  required,  in  order  to  their 
admission  into  the  bond  for  renewing  our  Solemn  Covenants,  to  at- 
tend conference  with  their  respective  sessions,  for  signifying  satisfac- 
tion with  the  present  judgment  of  the  Synod  ;  and  a  sense  of  the  mis- 
take they  have  hitherto,  through  inadvertency,  been  under,  concern- 
ing such  burgess  oaths." 

This  cannot  be  said  to  have  been  a  rash  decision.  It  was  the  re- 
sult of  much  grave  deliberation.  Before  it  was  made,  says  a  writer, 
who  had  the  best  opportunity  of  knowing  the  facts  belonging  to  this 
affair,  there  was  much  reasoning  on  the  subject  of  it,  at  four  diflTerent 
meetings  of  Synod,  in  thirteen  sederunts,  mostly  very  long.  The 
Synod  was  thrice  engaged  in  public  fasting,  with  regard  to  this  mat- 
ter ;  and  thrice  in  private  diets  for  prayer ;  and  seven  times  were  dif- 
ferent brethren  so  employed  in  the  course  of  reasoning,* 

§  66.  The  ground  of  this  decision  seems  plain.  For,  supposing 
that  it  were  people's  duty  to  maintain  a  testimony  for  reformation 
principles,  in  the  way  of  secession  from  the  Established  Church  of 
Scotland  ;  it  is  evident,  that  they  who  had  espoused  that  testimony, 
and  sincerely  intended  to  continue  in  their  adherence  to  it,  could  not 
swear  an  oath,  having  the  said  religious  clause  in  it,  without  being 
guilty  of  swearing  falsely.  For  in  any  country,  where  there  is  a  cer- 
tain church  communion  established  by  law,  a  person  who  describes 
himself  as  one  "who  professes  and  allows  with  his  heart  the  true  reli- 
gion presently  professed  within  that  realm,  and  authorised  by  the 
laws  thereof,"  must,  according  to  the  most  natural  meaning  of  the 
words,  be  understood  as  owning  himself  to  be  of  that  communion.  A 
stranger  to  the  dispute  about  the  meaning  of  these  words,  would  un- 
doubtedly be  surprised  to  hear  that  they  had  ever  been  taken  in  any 
other  sense. 

Alex.  The  burghers,  I  understand,  say,  that  it  was  the  true,  the 
divine  religion  itself,  professed  and  authorised  in  Scotland  ;  the  true 
religion  professed  by  Seceders  in  their  Act  and  Testimony,  and 
not  the  faulty  manner  of  professing  and  settling  it,  that  was  sworn  to 
in  the  said  clause  of  some  burgess  oaths. f  In  this  sense,  they  con- 
sidered that  clause  as  binding  them  to  the  profession  of  the  true  re- 
ligion, but  not  to  formal  and  full  communion  with  the  Established 
Church. 

*  Introduction  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Associate  Synod  in  the  year  1747- 
t  Ke-exhibition  of  the  Testimony,  pages  260,  261- 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  419 

RuF.  This  interpretation  is  not  to  be  admitted  :  First,  because  it 
takes  the  expression,  true  religion,  in  this  clause  abstractly,  without 
a  due  regard  to  the  following  words  by  which  it  is  defined.  Second, 
because,  according  to  this  interpretation,  the  swearer  of  the  said  reli- 
gious clause,  while  the  words  of  it  defining  the  true  religion  here  in- 
tended necessarily  signify  that  he  allows  in  his  heart  the  present  na- 
tional profession  of  religion,  and  the  authorising  of  it  by  the  laws  of 
the  land  ;  yet,  being  a  8eceder,  disapproves  that  profession  and  that 
authorising  as  faulty.  The  swearer's  approbation  of  the  national  pro- 
fession, and  of  the  laws  authorising  it,  is  the  native  import  of  the 
words  used  in  this  clause  :  but  the  disapprobation  of  what  the  swearer 
judges  faulty,  is  added  in  his  mind  ;  and,  being  neither  expressed  nor 
necessarily  understood  by  the  words,  is  an  instance  of  that  mental  re- 
servation, which  sound  morality  does  not  allow  to  have  any  place  in 
the  taking  of  an  oath 

It  is  to  be  observed,  that  the  swearer  of  this  clause  acknowledges 
two  things  ;  first,  that  there  is  a  profession  of  the  true  religion  to 
which  this  definition  agrees,  That  it  is  made  in  this  realm,  and  au- 
thorised by  the  laws  thereof ;  a  profession  which  cannot  be  denied 
to  be  made  in  the  communion  of  the  Established  Church  :  and  second, 
that  he  himself  professes  and  allows  with  his  heart  the  true  religion, 
according  to  the  same  definition.  His  profession,  therefore,  of  the 
true  religion  must  be  allowed  to  be  the  same  with  that  which  is  made 
in  the  communion  of  the  Established  Church ;  for  the  definition  of 
both  is  the  same.  This  clause,  then,  cannot  reasonably  be  supposed 
to  mean  two  sorts  of  religious  profession ;  as  if  one  sort  were  signified 
by  the  words,  I  profess;  and  a  different  sort  by  the  words,  professed 
withiii  this  realm. 

The  due  profession  of  the  christian  religion  always  implies,  that 
the  professor  is  a  member  of  the  church  of  Christ ;  and  that  the  pro- 
fession he  makes  is  that  of  some  part  of  the  visible  church.  Hence, 
there  is  no  lawful  engagement  to  the  profession  of  the  christian  reli- 
gion, which  is  not  an  engagement  to  the  profession  which  is  made  of 
it  in  some  particular  church  communion.  But  it  is  evident,  that  the 
church  communion,  to  whose  public  profession  the  swearer  of  this 
clause  vows  adherence,  is  determined  by  the  words,  'presently  pro- 
fessed and  authorised  by  the  laws  of  the  land,  to  be  that  of  the 
Established  Church ;  there  being  no  other  church  communion,  to 
whose  profession  this  description  entirely  agrees. 

It  is  a  received  maxim,  that  every  oath  ought  to  be  taken  in  the 
sense  of  the  administrator,  and  in  pursuance  of  his  declared  design. 
Hence,  we  are  led  to  conclude,  that  as  the  administrator  himself  of 
these  burgess  oaths  professes  the  true  religion  in  the  way  of  for- 
mal and  full  communion  with  the  Established  Church  ;  so,  he  consid- 
ers the  swearers  of  them  as  professing  the  true  religion  in  the  same 
way. 


420  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

The  word  presently,  as  it  is  used  in  this  clause,  shows,  that  it 
means  the  swearer's  approbation  of  the  pubHc  profession  of  the  Es- 
tablished Church  at  the  time  when  it  is  sworn.  Hence,  the  swearing 
of  this  clause  must  be  directly  opposite  to  the  testimony  of  Seceders, 
which  declares  the  present  profession  of  that  church  to  be  so  cor- 
rupt as  to  render  the  maintenance  of  a  testimony  in  a  separate  com- 
munion necessary. 

No  person  acquainted  with  the  profession  of  religion  made  by  the 
Established  Church,  and  also  with  that  exhibited  in  the  testimony  of 
Seceders,  can,  with  any  color  of  reason,  deny,  that  many  things  are 
admitted  as  consistent  with  the  former,  and  included  in  it,  which  are 
directly  opposite  to  the  latter ;  such  as  the  civil  magistrate's  power 
of  dissolving  the  highest  judicatories  of  the  church,  and  of  directing 
ministers  to  be  settled  according  to  the  law  of  patronage  ;  the  con- 
demning of  various  important  truths  contained  in  the  Marrow  of 
Modern  Divinity  ;  neglecting  to  acknowledge  the  covenanted  refor- 
mation, as  attained  in  the  period  between  1638  and  1649  ;  censuring 
ministers  for  testifying  against  public  corruptions  ;  and  especially,  the 
persisting  in  and  justifying  these  and  the  like  evils  in  such  a  manner 
as  rendered  the  maintenance  of  a  testimony  against  them,  in  a  separate 
communion,  necessary. 

On  the  whole,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt,  that  the  judgment  ex- 
pressed in  the  Synod's  decision  concerning  the  religious  clause  in 
some  burgess  oaths,  will  at  length  be  acknowledged,  by  serious  and 
candid  inquirers,  to  be  just  and  moderate ;  namely,  "  That  the 
swearing  of  this  clause,  by  any  under  their  inspection,  as  the  said 
clause  comes  necessarily  in  this  period  to  be  used  and  applied,  does 
not  agree  to  the  present  state  and  circumstances  of  the  testimony 
for  religion  and  reformation,  which  this  Synod,  with  those  under  their 
inspection,  are  maintaining  ;  particularly,  that  it  does  not  agree  to, 
nor  consist  with  an  entering  into  the  bond  for  renewing  our  solemn 
covenants." 

§  67.  Alex.  Might  not  the  contending  parties  have  exercised  for- 
bearance towards  one  another  about  this  matter  ?  I  have  heard,  that 
the  defenders  of  the  clause  as  fewful,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  offered 
to  condescend  to  an  act  discharging  Seceders  to  swear  this  clause  of 
the  oath,  as  inexpedient  in  the  present  cicumstances  of  strife  and 
contention  ;  and  that  this  pacific  proposal  was  entirely  rejected  by  the 
q.ntiburghers.* 

RuF.  A  respectable  member  of  the  Associate  Synod,  than  whom 
no  one  had  better  opportunities  of  knowing  all  that  passed  in  that 
court,  declares  in  a  publication  a  few  years  before  his  death,  that  the 
antiburghers  could  never  reject  the  proposal  you  have  related,  as 


*  Re-exhibition,  &e.  page  261. 


ALEXANDER  AND   RUFUS.  421 

it  was  never  made.*  In  the  Display  of  the  Secession  Testimony, f 
there  is  an  account  of  four  overtures,  the  third  of  which  seems  to 
come  the  nearest  to  what  you  have  recited.  It  was  to  this  purpose  ; 
That,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  and  to  prevent  different  practices,  when 
any  under  the  inspection  of  the  Synod  were  proposing  to  become 
burgesses,  they  should  be  advised  to  take  the  burgess  oaths  without 
the  said  clause,  till  the  members  of  the  Synod  should  come  to  see 
more  clearly,  eye  to  eye,  in  this  matter.  But  such  an  advice  would 
have  implied  the  Synod's  allowance  of  the  other  clauses  of  these 
oaths,  which  had  not  yet  come  under  their  consideration.  This  over- 
ture overlooked  the  case  of  those  who  were  already  engaged  in  such 
burgess  oaths.  And  these  brethren  would,  by  no  means,  grant,  that 
such  as  would  not  follow  the  advice  of  the  overture,  should,  in  the 
mean  time,  be  refused  admission  into  the  bond  for  renewing  our  cov- 
enants. 

There  was  another  overture  for  a  mutual  forbearance  of  one  another 
in  the  present  question  ;  as  being  one  of  these  things  which  was  never 
matter  of  testimony  in  the  Church  of  Scotland,  and  which  we  never 
had  attained. 

The  observations  on  this  overture  in  the  Display  of  the  Secession 
Testimony,  seem  to  be  such  plain  truths  as  might  carry  conviction  to 
every  reflecting  mind. 

First,  it  is  observed,  with  regard  to  the  reason  offered  in  support 
of  this  overture,  that  the  matter  of  the  present  question,  namely,  the 
swearing  of  the  religious  clause  in  this  period,  could  not  have  been  a 
matter  of  testimony  in  any  former  period,  more  than  the  year  1746 
could  have  existed  in  any  former  period. 

There  are  various  points  of  religious  testimony  attained  now,  that 
were  not  explicitly  attained  by  our  forefathers  either  in  the  first  or 
second  reformation.  And  it  appears  from  a  protestation  made  in 
1638,  which  was  recited  in  one  of  our  former  conversations,  that,  in 
their  judgment,  any  general  swearing  to  religion,  without  specifying 
all  the  points  of  testimony  attained,  would  not  be  warrantable. 

Again,  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  the  national  profession  and  settle- 
ment of  religion,  (which,  as  we  have  seen,  is  acknowledged  and  ap- 
proved in  swearing  the  said  religious  clause,)  are  very  different  now 
from  what  they  were  then.  The  things  which  that  clause  refers  to 
now,  are  very  different  from  those  things  which  it  referred  to  then. 
In  that  respect,  such  a  swearing  of  this  religious  clause,  as  that  which 
is  now  in  question,  is  a  thing  which  had  no  being  in  the  reforming 
covenanting  period.  The  religious  clause  in  some  few  burgess  oaths, 
might  not  be  adverted  to  by  our  reforming  ancestors.     But  they  man- 

*  See  an  Account  of  the  Burgher  Re-exhibition  of  the  Testimony,  page  14. 
t  Vol.  ii.  pages  36,  S7,  38. 


422  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

ifested  their  adherence  to  the  principle  on  which  the  Associate  Synod 
proceeded,  in  the  decision  concerning  that  clause.  An  act  of  parlia- 
ment was  passed  in  the  year  1633,  ratifying  all  acts  and  statutes  made 
before  concerning  the  liberty  and  freedom  of  the  true  kirk  of  God, 
and  religion  presently  professed  within  this  realm.  From  this  act  a 
considerable  number  of  nobility,  barons  and  burgesses  dissented  :  The 
whole  artifice  of  that  act,  says  Rapin,  in  his  history  of  England,  con- 
sisted in  these  words,  religion  presently  professed  :  for  thereby  were 
confirmed  all  the  innovations  in  the  discipline  of  the  kirk  of  Scotland, 
which  were  so  offensive  to  the  opposers  of  that  act.  Would  not  they 
who  condemned  an  act  of  parliament  for  referring  to  the  present 
profession  of  the  true  religion  which  obtained  before  the  reformation 
in  1638,  have  equally  condemned  any  oath,  if  they  had  adverted  to 
it,  which  referred  no  less  to  the  same  present  profession;  as  liable  to 
such  a  construction  as  that  which  is  put  on  it  by  the  historian  just 
now  mentioned  ? 

Second,  It  maybe-observed,  that  it  is  no  wonder,  that  the  Synod  could 
not  comply  with  a  proposal,  which  proceeded  upon  a  doctrine  of 
mutual  forbearance,  giving  a  toleration  for  a  joint  swearing  of  two 
oaths  supposed  to  be  contradictory,  even  in  the  general  matter  of  re- 
ligion. 

But,  Third,  upon  the  supposition  of  the  Synod's  forbearing  a  pres- 
ent decision  of  the  question,  these  brethren  would,  by  no  means  agree 
to  forbear,  in  the  mean  time,  an  admission  of  those,  engaged  in  such 
burgess  oaths,  into  the  bond  for  renewing  the  covenants  ;  any  more 
than  if  the  Synod  had  decided  according  to  their  mind.  It  could  not 
therefore  appear,  that  the  forbearance  proposed  was  genuine,  or  re- 
ally mutual,  or  anywise  calculated  for  preserving  peace  or  for  prevent- 
ing different  practices. 

It  may  be  added,  that  there  was  an  obvious  difference  between  the 
case  of  the  one  party  and  that  of  the  other.  It  appears  even  from  the 
overtures  that  were  proposed  by  the  defenders  of  this  religious  clause, 
that  they  did  not  consider  the  practice  of  swearing  the  said  clause  as 
necessary,  or  the  prohibition  of  that  practice  as  inconsistent  with  their 
religious  profession.  Some  of  them^declined  asserting  the  lawfulness 
of  the  burgess  oath  in  its  religious  clause.  One  of  the  protesters* 
publicly  declared,  that  he  was  not  to  be  looked  upon  as  having  any 
freedom  to  stand  in  opposition  to  the  decision  of  the  Synod  condemn- 
ing that  clause.  Besides,  they  might  have  agreed,  that  the  swearing 
of  this  clause  should  be  prohibited  upon  some  of  the  grounds  on  which 
members  of  the  Synod  reasoned  against  it ;  particularly,  on  this 
ground  mentioned  in  the  Display  of  the  Secession  Testimony, f  name- 
ly, that  the  laws  of  civil  society  do  not  warrant  the  limiting  of  bur- 

*  Mr.  Hutton,  minister  at  Stow.    See  a  Display  of  the  Secession  TestimoDV, 
page  90.  t  Page  33. 


ALEXANDER   AND   RUFUS.  423 

gess  privileges,  to  persons  of  the  moral  aud  religious  qualifications  re- 
quisite to  the  swearing  of  a  solemn  religious  oath.  But  the  case  of 
the  other  party  was  very  different.  They  understood  this  religious 
clause  as  an  oath  of  formal  and  full  communion  with  the  Establihed 
Church  in  its  present  state  ;  and  as  quite  inconsistent  with  the  main- 
tenance of  their  profession  in  the  way  of  a  secession  from  that  church. 
They  also  believed,  that  whoever  should  swear  both  this  religious 
clause  and  the  bond  for  renewing  our  covenants,  would  swear  con- 
tradictory oaths.  Hence  it  is  evident,  that  all  the  conscience  they 
made  of  holding  their  testimony  in  the  way  of  secession  from  the  Es- 
tablished Church,  required  them  to  condemn  the  swearing  of  that  re- 
ligious clause. 

§  68.  Alex.  I  understand,  that  the  question,  which  at  last  occa- 
sioned the  rupture  of  the  Associate  Synod,  was  different  from  that 
about  the  lawfulness  of  swearing  the  religious  clause  of  some  burgess 
oaths. 

RuF.  When  the  decision  which  has  been  recited,  concerning  the  re- 
ligious clause  of  some  burgess  oaths,  was  passed,  five  ministers  and 
two  elders  protested  against  it,  and  proposed  reasons  of  their  protest. 
At  the  next  meeting,  which  was  in  September  It 46,  two  ministers 
and  two  elders,  declared  an  adherence  to  their  protest.  At  this  meet- 
ing these  protesting  brethren  introduced  the  question,  Whether  the 
decision  of  synod  concerning  the  said  clause  should  be  a  term  of  min- 
isterial and  christian  communion  ?  When  the  Synod  met  in  April, 
174:7,  the  consideration  of  that  decision  having  been  resumed,  it  was 
proposed,  that  the  Synod  should  proceed  according  to  the  usual  or- 
der, to  hear  the  reasons  of  protest,  with  the  draught  of  answers,  which 
had  been  prepared  by  a  committee.  But  immediately  the  protesters 
renewed  their  former  question  about  the  said  decision  being  a  term  of 
communion,  in  this  new  and  larger  form;  namely,  "Whether,  or  not, 
the  decision  of  synod  concerning  the  religious  clause  of  some  burgess 
oaths  shall  now  or  afterwards  be  made  a  term  of  ministerial  aud  christian 
communion  ;  until  the  making  of  it  to  be  so  shall  be  referred,  by  way 
of  overture,  to  presbyteries  and  kirk-sessions,  in  order  to  their  giv- 
ing their  judgment  concerning  it ;  that  so  there  may  in  the  mean 
time,  be  a  friendly  dealing  among  the  members  of  the  Synod,  in  a 
way  of  conference  and  prayer  ;  in  order  to  their  coming,  through  the 
Lord's  pity,  to  see  eye  to  eye,  in  the  matter  of  the  said  religious 
clause  ?" 

On  Wednesday,  the  8th  day  of  April,  the  first  day  of  this  meeting 
after  these  protesting  brethren  had  insisted,  till  it  was  very  late,  that 
a  vote  should  be  taken  on  this  question,  some  proposed  a  previous 
question,  namely,  Whether,  or  not,  the  synod  should  immediately  pro- 
ceed to  call  for  the  reasons  of  the  protest  and  the  answers  thereto, 
and  to  read  and  consider  them  ?  A  third  question  was  then  pro- 
posed, namely,    Whether  the  votes  should  be  taken  on  the  question 


424  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

of  the  protesters,  or  on  the  other  question  now  mentioned  ?  As  it 
was  carried,  that  the  votes  should  be  taken  on  the  former,  three  min- 
isters dissented  from  this  resolution ;  and  in  the  forenoon  of  the  next 
day,  their  dissent  was  adhered  to  by  nine  other  ministers  and  ten 
elders. 

The  necessity  of  the  dissent  from  this  resolution  is  evident.  For, 
in  the  first  place,  the  question  itself  on  which  the  votes  were  to  be 
taken,  was,  in  this  case,  unwarrantable ;  as  it  supposed  the  Synod  to 
have  a  power  which  it  could  not  have.  It  was  competent  to  the  Synod 
to  review  their  former  decision,  and  if  they  found  it  wrong,  to  reverse 
it.  But  they  could  have  no  just  power  to  make  a  new  decision  by 
which  the  former  would  be  materially  reversed,  and  yet  left  formally 
standing.  Such,  however,  is  the  purport  of  this  question.  It  pro- 
poses to  leave  the  Synod's  decision  standing,  to  be  considered  formally 
as  such  by  presbyteries  and  sessions,  and,  at  the  same  time,  to  render 
that  decision  of  no  more  effect,  with  regard  to  ministerial  and  chris- 
tian communion,  than  if  it  had  been  reversed.  Again,  this  question 
supposes  the  Synod  to  have  a  power,  which  it  could  not  have,  to 
tolerate  among  their  people,  the  swearing  of  said  religious  clause ; 
while  the  swearing  of  it  at  present  is  declared,  in  their  standing  act, 
to  be  contradictory  to  their  bond  for  renewing  the  covenants,  and  to 
be  inconsistent  with  the  Secession  Testimony  as  avouched  in  that 
bond.  Further,  according  to  this  question,  a  decision  of  Synod,*  in 
a  controversy  of  faith  or  case  of  conscience,  considered  as  a  decision 
still  formally  standing,  was  to  be  referred  to  inferior  judicatories,  par- 
ticularly to  kirk-sessions  in  order  to  their  judging,  whether  they  should 
submit  to  it :  as  if  a  Synod  might  warrantably  say  to  subordinate  ju- 
dicatories concerning  an  act  in  which  they  have  made  a  just  applica- 
tion of  the  word  of  Christ  to  a  particular  case  ;  "  You  may  be  either 
under  the  obligation  of  this  act,  or  not  so,  as  you  shall  judge  proper." 
Nothing  could  be  more  contrary  to  the  nature  of  presbyterial,  or 
scriptural  church  government  than  such  a  proposal.  It  is  true,  that 
no  synods  or  councils,  since  the  days  of  the  apostles,  are  infallible ; 
but  if  the  fallibility  of  courts  of  judicature,  without  sufficient  evidence 
of  their  having  actually  erred,  be  allowed  to  deprive  their  decisions 
of  obligatory  force  and  operation,  the  authority  and  use  of  courts, 
civil  and  ecclesiastic,  will  soon  be  at  an  end. 

In  the  second  place,  the  proposal  of  taking  the  votes  of  the  Synod 
on  this  question,  before  the  reasons  of  protest  and  the  answers  to  them 

*  "This  is  a  false  charge,"  (say  the  defenders  of  this  question.  Re-exhibition  &c. 
page  272)  "for  it  was  not  the  decision,  but  the  question  concerning  its  being  a 
term  of  communion,  that  was  proposed  to  be  transmitted."  But  the  fact  is,  that 
these  two  points  cannot  be  separated:  for,  as  one  justfy  observes,  neither  sense 
nor  conscience  can  admit  of  judging,  that  the  sentence  should  not  be  a  term  of 
communion,  but  in  the  way  of  judging  it  to  be  wrong.  They  seem  themselves  to 
be  sensilde  of  this,  when  they  add,  "  Though  it  had  been  the  decision,  yet  the 
transmission  of  it  was  necessaij." 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  425 

were  read  and  considered,  was  unjust ;  as  the  decision  concerning  the 
said  clause  was  thereby  liable  to  be  materially  reversed  or  annulled ; 
while  the  members  of  the  court  were  precluded  from  the  benefit  of  the 
most  proper  means  of  obtaining  light  as  to  the  merits  of  the  cause. 
To  call  members  to  vote  on  any  question,  and  at  the  same  time  to 
withhold  the  means  necessary  for  enabling  them  to  vote  with  judg- 
ment, cannot  be  denied  to  be  most  unbecoming  a  court  of  Christ, 
which,  above  all  other  courts  of  judicature,  is  bound  to  search  after 
knowledge,  and  to  judge  righteously. 

Alex.  The  burghers  say,  that  this  charge  of  suppressing  the  light, 
which  was  to  be  had  by  hearing  the  reasons  of  protest  and  the  an- 
swers to  them,  is  false.  For  in  case  it  was  for  light  and  information 
to  members,  the  Synod  was  content  that  all  should  be  read.  But  the 
separating  brethren,  say  they,  evidently  designed  victory  more  than 
light ;  for  unless  their  brethren,  who  protested  against  that  decision, 
should  be  held  pannels  or  parties,  they  themselves  would  not  suffer 
these  reasons  and  answers  to  be  read.  They  say  farther,  these  sep- 
arating brethren  themselves  occasioned  their  not  being  read  at  the 
meeting  immediately  preceeding,  at  Stirling.* 

RuF.  These  brethren  solemnly  protested,  that  they  had  no  other 
design  in  requiring  the  reasons  of  protest  to  be  first  read  and  consid- 
ered, than  that  the  doing  so  was  necessary  according  to  good  order 
and  for  the  information  of  members.  And  there  seems  to  be  no 
ground  from  the  facts  established  for  supposing  thai  they  had  any 
other  design.  The  charge,  on  the  other  hand,  against  the  party  of 
the  protesters,  of  suppressing  light  by  getting  the  votes  of  the  Synod 
taken  on  their  question  without  the  previous  hearing  of  the  said  rea- 
sons and  answers,  cannot  be  disproved  by  the  instances  you  have 
mentioned.  The  fact  is  not  denied  :  it  is  only  alleged,  that  they  had 
inducements  or  temptations  to  do  as  they  did.  When  it  was  said, 
that  those,  who  composed  the  committee  appointed  to  prepare  an- 
swers to  the  reasons  of  protest,  occasioned  that  they  were  not  read  in 
the  preceding  meeting  at  Stirling,  it  should  have  been  added,  that  they 
had  not  been  able  to  finish  their  draft  of  them  before  that  meeting. 
Nor  should  this  failuie  be  imputed  to  them  as  a  fault ;  since  it  is  not 
denied,  that  the  court  had  admitted  their  excuse,  on  account  of  sac- 
ramental occasions  and  other  necessary  duties,  to  be  sufficient.  With 
regard  to  the  assertion,  that  the  defenders  of  the  decision  concerning 
the  said  religious  clause  would  not  suffer  these  reasons  and  the  an- 
swers to  them  to  be  read,  unless  the  protesters  should,  be  pannels  or 
parties ;  the  fact  alluded  to  is  thus  represented  by  one  who  was  fully 
acquainted  with  all  that  passed  on  this  occasion.  In  the  course  of 
reasoning  on  the  9th  of  April,  when  a  hearing  of  the  reasons  and  an- 
swers was  still  urged,  one  of  the  protesters,  (without  being  contra- 

*  Ke-exliibition,  pages  174, 175. 


426  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

dieted  by  the  rest,)  proposed  to  yield  to  a  previous  reading  of  them, 
upon  this  condition,  that  the  voting  of  their  question  should  immedi- 
ately follow  without  any  further  reasoning  on  the  subject.*  Were 
not  the  fact  so  ascertained  as  to  leave  no  room  to  doubt  it,  one  could 
scarcely  conceive,  that  any  member  would  seriously  propose,  as  a  con- 
dition of  the  court's  observing  a  point  of  common  and  necessary  or- 
der, the  consent  of  their  brethren  to  the  voting  of  a  question  immedi- 
ately after  ;  while  these  brethren  had  been  all  along,  and  were  now 
openly  and  earnestly  contending  against  the  Synod's  voting  on  such 
a  question  at  all ;  under  a  full  conviction,  that  their  doing  so,  as  the 
case  was  circumstanced,  was  incompetent  to  the  court,  and  exceeding 
sinful.  The  proposal  does  not  seem  to  have  been  seconded  ;  and  no 
wonder  considering  the  gross  impropriety  of  it. 

Alex.  It  has  been  said,  that  in  September,  1746,  and  on  August 
8th,  1^47,  the  opposers  of  this  question  allowed,  that  it  was  lawful 
and  regular  to  vote  on  it ;  though  they  afterward  reckoned  it  a  crim- 
inal question,  f 

RuF.  It  is  evident,  that  the  defenders  of  the  Synod's  decision,  op- 
posed voting  on  this  question  from  the  first  proposal  of  it  In  Sep- 
tember, 1746,  after  long  and  earnest  contending  against  it,  they  ob- 
tained a  delay  ;  and  such  a  delay  as  its  friends  then  accounted  not  an 
allowance,  but  a  material  rejection  of  it.  J  On  the  8th  of  April,  1747, 
they  endeavored  by  a  previous  question  to  get  it  set  aside  ;  insisting 
all  along  on  the  inconsistency  of  it  with  the  profession  and  constitu- 
tion of  the  Synod.  On  the  next  day,  they  opposed  it  in  the  way  of 
solemn  protestations.  Thus  they  used  all  proper  means  for  prevent- 
ing the  Synod  from  voting  on  this  question.  Some  of  these  members, 
indeed,  acknowledged  their  sin  in  giving  so  much  countenance  to  the 
putting  of  this  question,  as  to  offer  an  opposite  side  to  it,  or  to  vote 
the  delay  of  it.  But  no  candid  person,  who  attends  to  the  history  of 
this  affair,  will  deny  that  their  opposition,  though  sometimes  not  car- 
ried so  far  as  it  might  have  been,  was  all  along  open  and  decided. 
They  gave  no  ground  for  any  to  say,  that  they  ever  allowed  it  to  be 
lawful  and  regular,  for  the  synod,  to  vote  on  such  a  question.  These 
endeavors  indeed  were  unsuccessful.  The  protesters  and  their  party, 
after  it  was  carried,  as  I  have  already  stated,  for  the  Synod's  voting 
on  their  question,  urged,  that  the  votes  of  the  members  should  be  ta- 
ken immediately.  But  the  moderator  and  clerk  declined  acting  on 
this  occasion.  So  that  the  step  which  was  the  immediate  cause  of  the 
rupture  might  have  been  prevented  at  that  time,  if  two  members  had 
not  presumed,  without  any  appointment  of  the  court,  to  act,  the  one 

*  Display  of  the  Secession  Testiinomy,  page  328. 

t  An  Impartial  Survey,  &c.,    And  Re-exhibition,  &c.,  page  269. 

t  Display,  &c.,  pages  338,  339. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  427 

as  moderator  in  calling  the  names,  and  the  other  as  clerk  in  making 
the  votes.  Twenty  members  voted  in  the  affirmative  ;  of  whom  six 
ministers  and  one  elder,  being  protesters  against  the  decision  concern- 
ing the  religious  clause  of  some  burgess  oaths,  were  directly  parties 
in  this  question.  The  twenty-three  members,  who  were  standing  un- 
der a  solemn  protestation  against  the  putting  of  such  a  question, 
could  not  vote.  On  this  event,  a  member  who  had  been  moderator  of 
the  former  meeting  declared,  that  as  those  who  had  gone  into  a  reso- 
lution to  transmit  the  decision  concerning  the  religious  clause  of  some 
burgess  oaths  to  presbyteries  and  sessions  in  order  to  their  judging, 
whether  that  decision  should  be  a  term  of  communion,  had,  in  so  do- 
ing, departed  from  the  constitution  and  testimony  of  the  Associate 
Synod  ;  so  the  constitution  of  that  court  remained  in  the  majority  of 
ministers,  who  had  all  along  at  this  meeting,  contended  against  voting 
on  that  question,  and  also  a  considerable  number  of  elders  ;  together 
with  any.  members^  who  might  adhere  to  them  ;  and  proposed,  that 
they  should  meet  next  day,  at  ten  o'clock,  forenoon,  in  Mr.  Gib's 
house,  in  order  to  proceed  in  the  business  of  the  Synod. 

§  69.  Alex.  As  it  is  often  the  case  in  battles,  that  both  sides  claim 
the  victory ;  so,  each  party,  on  this  occasion,  pretended  to  have  the 
majority  of  votes.  The  burghers  say  they  had  a  majority,  thirty-two 
against  twenty-two.* 

RuF.  At  the  meeting  of  Synod,  in  which  that  melancholy  event 
took  place,  there  were  present  twenty-nine  of  the  thirty-two  ministers 
who  then  belonged  to  the  Synod,  with  twenty-four  elders.  Twenty 
members,  namely,  six  ministers  and  one  elder,  who  had  protested 
against  the  decision  concerning  the  religious  clause  of  some  burgess 
oaths,  with  three  other  ministers  and  ten  elders,  voted  in  the  affirma- 
tive, against  twenty-three,  consisting  of  thirteen  ministers  and  ten  el- 
ders, who,  as  has  been  observed,  all  along  opposed  this  question  in 
the  most  decisive  and  solemn  manner,  f  The  rest  of  the  members 
were  silent.  Even  though  all  the  twenty,  who  voted  for  the  affirma- 
tive of  this  question,  had  been  legal  voters,  there  was  still  a  majority 
against  it.  But  of  these  twenty,  the  seven  protesters,  as  they  were 
directly  parties  on  the  subject  of  the  question,  could  not  be  legal  vo- 
ters. And  with  regard  to  thirteen  of  them,  to  whose  right  of  voting 
no  objection  was  ever  offered,  there  was  no  reason  to  say,  that  twelve 
of  them  voted  without  any  proper  knowledge  of  the  subject  of  their 
vote.     Two  of  them  were  ministers  ;  of  whom  one  had  never  been  in 

*  Re-exhibition,  &c.  page  261. 

+  That  the  mimber  of  those,  who  stood  under  a  protestation  against  the  ques- 
tion about  the  Synod's  decision  being  a  term  of  communion  was  twenty-three,  is 
not  disputed ;  viz.,  thirteen  ministers,  Messrs.  Alexander  Moncrief,  Thomas  Mair, 
James  Thomson.  Adam  Gib,  Andrew  Clarkson,  James  Scot,  George  Brown,  Wil- 
liam Campbell,  John  Whyte,  George  Murray,  Robert  Archibald  and  William  Mair, 
with  ten  elders. 


428  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

the  Synod  before.  And  the  other  ministers,  with  the  ten  elders  who 
voted  on  the  same  side,  had  not  been  present  at  any  judicial  exami- 
nation of  the  subject.  The  case  was  the  same  with  the  elders  on  the 
side  of  those  who  were  refusing  to  vote  at  all ;  but  this  was  the  very 
reason  of  their  refusal,  that  they  had  not  had  an  opportunity  of  un- 
derstanding what  they  were  to  vote  about. 

Alex.  On  what  ground,  then,  did  the  friends  of  this  question  pre- 
tend, that  they  had  a  majority  of  votes  on  their  side. 

RuF.  They  reckoned,  among  the  voters  on  their  side,  the  modera- 
tor ;  (though,  when  they  were  proceeding  to  put  the  question,  he  re- 
fused to  call  the  roll,  and  immediately  left  them  for  that  night ;)  and 
also,  an  absent  elder,  falsely  supposed  to  be  on  their  side.  "But  when 
these  two  were  added,  they  were  still  the  minority ;  and  therefore 
they  reckoned  to  their  side  six  ministers  and  two  elders,  who  had  not 
voted.  Silent  members  may  be  added  to  the  majority ;  but  adding 
them  to  the  minority  is  unusual  in  courts. 

These  silent  members,  indeed,  continuing  with  the  twenty  voters, 
seemed  to  form  a  prevailing  party,  at  that  junctuie,  on  the  side  of 
the  voted  resolution.  But  as  the  carrying  of  that  resolution,  in  the 
manner  now  related,  subverted  the  constitution  of  the  Associate  Syn- 
od j  so  a  majority,  made  up  in  this  manner,  could  not  be  justly  ac- 
counted that  court.  Besides,  it  may  be  reasonably  allowed,  that  in 
point  of  form,  this  title  belongs  to  that  party  which,  at  the  rupture, 
had  the  majority  of  ministers,  who  are  the  only  constant  and  habitual 
members  of  the  Synod.  It  was  then  found,  that  these  seven  protes- 
ters had  got  no  more  than  five  ministers  of  the  Synod  to  take  part 
with  them  in  forming  a  Synod  upon  the  ground  of  the  resolution  which 
occasioned  the  rupture  ;  while  nineteen  ministers  remained  in  the  op- 
posite body  on  the  ground  of  a  just  and  scriptural  decision  concern- 
ing the  rehgions  clause  of  some  burgess  oaths ;  a  decision,  the  ob- 
vious design  of  which  was  no  other,  than  that  of  maintaining  the  pro- 
fession of  the  true  religion,  as  it  is  stated  in  the  Judicial  Testimony, 
and  the  bond  agreed  on  by  the  Associate  Presbytery.  It  is  contrary 
to  presbyterial  order,  and  even  to  the  common  principles  of  society, 
to  suppose,  that  the  minority  of  a  court  can  become  that  court,  in  op- 
position to  the  majority  ;  excepting  in  the  case  of  the  minority  be- 
ing so  constituted  by  a  superior  court,  to  which  it  is  subordinate.  It 
was,  therefore,  most  unreasonable,  for  twelve  ministerial  members, 
without  the  judgment  of  any  superior  court,  to  assume  to  themselves 
the  name  and  power  of  the  Associate  Synod,  in  opposition  to  nine- 
teen ministerial  members.  When  the  heat  of  passion  and  prejudice 
is  over,  it  will  be  easily  seen,  that  this  conduct  is  contrary  to  Pres- 
byterian parity,  and  even  to  the  humanity  and  brotherly  love  which 
are  so  necessary  in  the  followers,  and  especially  in  the  ministers,  of 
Jesus  Christ. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  429 

§  70.  Alex.  The  defenders  of  the  Synod's  decision  concerning  the 
religious  clause  of  some  burgess  oaths,  reckon,  that  the  protesters 
against  that  decision  were  parties  in  the  question  about  its  being  a 
term  of  communion.  But  those  on  the  other  side,  judged,  that  they 
would  rather  have  been  parties,  if  the  question  had  been  about  re- 
versing the  decision. 

RuF.  No  manner  or  degree  in  which  persons  may  have  previously 
appeared  on  one  side  of  a  public  cause  in  the  church,  can  make  it 
their  personal  cause,  or  make  them  such  parties  as  have  no  right  to 
judge  in  it.  How  absurd  would  it  be  to  suppose,  that  our  reformers 
were  parties  in  the  cause  between  them  and  the  Church  of  Rome, 
having  no  right  to  judge  in  it,  after  they  had  protested  against  it,  or 
had  become  Protestants. 

In  the  proceedings  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  against  the  Remonstrants 
or  Arminians.  who  then  insisted,  that  such  as  had  avowed  their  op- 
position to  them  on  these  points,  should  not  be  admitted  as  judges  of 
their  cause,  there  is  a  just  observation  to  this  purpose  :  "  What  rea- 
son," said  the  English  divines  in  that  Synod,  *'  can  be  given  for  de- 
priving of  the  right  of  suffrage,  in  this  matter,  all  the  pastors,  who, 
in  the  discharge  of  their  office,  had  defended  the  received  doctrine  of 
the  church,  and  opposed  such  as  taught  otherwise  ?  Were  this  mea- 
sure adopted,  no  minister  would  oppose  the  spread  of  new  doctrines, 
lest  he  should  thereby  lose  all  right  of  afterwards  giving  his  judg- 
ment in  controversies  about  them.  It  is  an  error  to  suppose,  that 
the  pastors,  in  this  way,  become  judges  in  their  own  cause.  Truth 
is  the  common  treasure  of  the  church :  nor  can  it  by  any  means  be- 
come the  private  property  of  individuals.  It  is  the  public  cause  of 
God  and  the  churcB,  not  any  one's  personal  cause,  that  is  debated  in 
the  Synods."* 

These  protesters,  then,  would  not  have  been  parties  in  the  question, 
Whether  that  decision  should  be  reversed  ?  that  being  a  matter  pure- 
ly doctrinal.  But  they  were  evidently  parties  in  the  question, 
Whether  that  decision  should  be  a  term  of  communion  ?  as  that 
would  hay^  been,  upon  the  matter,  in  inquiry,  whether  any  of  these 
protesters  should  be  called  to  an  account  for  their  opposition  to 
that  decision  ?  To  say  that  they  were  not  parties  in  this  question, 
and  that  they  might  be  judges  of  it,  is  as  unreasonable,  as  it  would 
be  to  say,  that  a  person  is  not  a  party,  but  may  act  as  a  judge  in  a 
cause  concerning  himself,  which  has  been  committed  to  the  verdict  of 
a  jury. 

*  Qu93  ratio  reddi  potest,  cur  suflFragiorum  jure  priventur  omnes  illi  pastorea, 
qui  ex  officio  receptam  ecclesiae  doctrinam  propugnantes,  secus  doceutibus  adver- 
sati  sunt?  Si-hoc  obtineret,  noxa dogmata  spargentibus  nemo  obsisteret,  ne,  ipso 
lacto,  jus  omne  postmodum  de  illis  controversiis  judicandi  amittereat.  In  eo 
erratur,  quod  pastores  in  sua  causa  hoc  modo  judices  esse  prsesumuntur.  Veritas 
communis  ecclesiae  thesaurus  est;  nee  potest  ullo  pacto  fieri  peculium  singular- 
urn  personarum.  Dei  et  ecclesiae  publica  causa  est,  non  sua  cujuscunque  quae  in 
d^nodis  agitur. 


430  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

Alex.  The  friends  of  the  decision  have  been  much  blamed  for 
saying  that  ministers,  and  not  elders  or  kirk  sessions,  are  the  proper 
judges  in  controversies  of  faith  and  cases  of  conscience ;  or  in  such 
a  question  as  this  ;  Whether  the  Synod's  decision  concerning  the 
religious  clause  of  some  burgess  oaths,  should  be  a  term  of  com- 


munion 


RuF.  When  ministers  are  called  the  proper  judges  in  a  controversy 
of  faith  or  case  of  conscience,  ruling  elders  are  not  excluded  from 
being  judges,  in  a  secondary  sense,  in  the  way  of  assisting  ministers, 
but  not  to  the  overbearing  of  them.  It  must  be  held,  however,  ac- 
cording to  the  Holy  Scripture  and  our  subordinate  standards,  that 
the  judicial  determination  of  doctrinal  controversies  properly  belongs 
to  those  to  whom  the  Lord  Jesus  has  committed  the  key  of  doctrine  ; 
which  is  explained  in  the  Judicial  Testimony,  to  be  "  for  expounding 
and  preaching  the  word,  and  for  determining  controversies  accord- 
ing to  the  scriptures."  The  oflSce  of  the  elders,  of  whom  we  now 
speak,  is  expressly  limited  to  ruling  and  government ;  and  is  hereby 
distinguished  from  that  of  other  elders,  who  labor  in  word  and  doc- 
trine, Rom.  xii.  8  ;  1  Corinth,  xii.  28  ;  1  Tim.  v.  17.  The  second 
book  of  discipline  teaches  concerning  the  elders,  that  their  principal 
ofl&ce  is  to  hold  assemblies  with  the  pastors,  for  the  establishing  of 
good  order  and  the  execution  of  discipline.  The  Westminster  As- 
sembly's form  of  church  government  lays  this  down  as  comprehend- 
ing the  whole  business  of  elders,  "  that  they  are  to  join  with  the  min- 
ister in  the  government  of  the  church."  In  February,  1597,  a  ques- 
tion having  been  proposed  by  King  James  about  those  who  should 
have  a  vote  in  synodical  assemblies,  some  brethren  out  of  the  several 
presbyteries  of  the  Synod  of  Fife,  gave  this  answer :  "  Such  as  have 
commission  from  particular  sessions  of  congregations  have  vote  ;  ex- 
cept in  matters  of  doctrine,  wherein  only  they  that  labor  in  the  word 
may  vote  and  judge."  The  Reformed  Church  of  France  determines 
in  the  third  chapter  of  their  discipline,  that  "  Elders  may  well  assist 
and  give  their  opinion  ;  but  the  decision  of  doctrine  is  principally 
reserved  to  ministers  and  pastors,  and  to  doctors  of  divinity  duly 
called  to  their  charges."  In  their  National  Assembly  in  1598,  they 
determined,  "  that  when  there  is  a  question  of  the  judgment  of  doc- 
trine, the  decision  of  it  belongs  to  the  ministers  only,''  With  regard 
to  kirk  sessions  in  a  constituted  state  of  the  church,  it  is  granted, 
that  they  are  proper  judges  of  what  is  the  acknowledged  doctrine 
of  the  church,  for  the  maintenance  of  it  in  their  several  congrega- 
tions :  but  it  is  denied  that  they,  as  courts  of  judicature,  may  pass 
decisions  about  what  should  be  the  acknowledged  doctrine  of  the 
church,  in  matters  of  public  controversy.  To  allow  such  a  judg- 
ment to  ruling  elders,  as  distinct  from  teaching  elders,  would  over- 
throw the  doctrine  of  our  standards,  by  placing  the  decisive  exercise, 
the  highest  exercise,  of  the  key  of  doctrine,  where  the  Lord  Jesus 
never  placed  it. 


ALEXANDER  AND  EUFUS.  431 

Alex.  The  resolution  to  transmit  the  decision  concerning  the  reli- 
gious clause  of  some  burgess  oaths  to  presbyteries  and  kirk  sessions 
is  said  to  be  according  to  some  barrier  acts,  particularly,  the  act  of 
the  assembly  in  1639,  ordaining,  "  that  no  innovation,  which  may 
disturb  the  peace  of  the  church  and  make  divisions,  be  suddenly  en- 
acted, but  so  as  the  motion  be  first  communicated  to  the  several  syn- 
ods, presbyteries  and  kirk  sessions,  that  the  commissioners  may  come 
well  prepared,  unanimously  to  conclude  a  solid  determination  upon 
these  points  in  the  general  assembly." 

RuF.  The  Synod's  declaring  that  they  have  found  something  in  the 
practice  of  church  members,  which  is  inconsistent  with  their  public 
profession,  and  which  is  therefore  to  be  avoided,  cannot,  with  any 
propriety,  be  called  an  innovation,  No  new  tenet  or  new  usage  was 
introduced  by  the  decision  in  question.  Besides,  there  is  reason  to 
believe,  that  the  act  you  have  mentioned,  relates  to  overtures  con- 
cerning matters  of  order  and  government,  and  not  to  doctrine ;  be- 
cause this  act  directs  the  proposal  to  be  communicated  to  kirk  ses- 
sions, which  are  not  properly  judges  of  doctrines,  being  mostly  made 
up  of  elders,  to  whom,  as  has  been  just  now  observed,  the  cognizance 
of  matters  of  discipline  and  government,  rather  than  of  doctrine,  be- 
longs. The  enacting  of  something  new,  with  regard  to  order,  may 
often  be  delayed  with  advantage,  or  at  least  without  any  loss.  But 
the  case  is  very  different,  when  it  is  required  to  determine  what  is 
truth  and  duty,  or  what  is  sin  and  error.  The  glory  of  God,  and 
the  near  concern  which  men's  consciences  have  in  such  questions,  ren- 
der the  speedy  determination  of  them  necessary.  Such,  in  an  emi- 
nent degree,  was  the  question  about  the  consistency  of  swearing  the 
religious  clause  of  some  burgess  oaths  with  the  testimony  and  bond 
that  had  been  agreed  on  by  the  Associate  Presbytery. 

Alex.  The  account  you  have  given  of  the  moderator  and  clerk, 
as  declining  to  act,  when  the  vote  was  taken  on  the  question  which 
occasioned  the  rupture  ;  and  of  others,  as  taking  upon  them,  without 
any  order  of  the  court,  to  call  the  names  and  mark  the  votes,  seems 
not  to  be  admitted  by  the  defenders  of  that  question.  ''Did  not  the 
moderator,"  says  one  of  them,  "  acquiesce  by  continuing  to  sit  in 
court,  after  the  sentence  was  passed,  in  April  9th  ?"*  "  The  min- 
utes bear,"  says  another  of  them,  '■  that  Henry  Erskine  was  appoin- 
ted to  clerk  by  turns  with  VJr.  Hutton."f 

RuF.  The  same  account  was  repeatedly  published  in  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  Associate  Synod,  soon  after  the  event  took  place; J  and 
none  of  those  then  present  are  known  to  have  called  this  account Jn 

*  Survey  of  the  controversy,  &e.,  page  70. 

t  Mr.  Broo^n,  in  his  letter  to  Mr.  Gib. 

X  See  their  proceedings  in  1747,  page  17— and  those  in  1749  and  1750,  page  10. 


432  ALEXANDER  AND   RUFUS. 

question.  The  writer  of  the  Display  of  the  Secession  Testimony, 
who  was  an  actor  in  this  mournful  scene,  and  who  had  better  means 
of  information,  than  any  of  the  authors  you  refer  to,  says  concerning 
Mr.  James  Mair,  who  had  been  chosen  moderator  by  the  Synod  at 
that  meeting,  that  he  was  in  the  chair  at  the  time  when  the  two  reso- 
lutions were  before  the  Synod ;  and  that  he  acted  as  moderator  with 
respect  to  the  first ;  but  that  it  is  a  most  notorious  fact,  that  with 
respect  to  the  second  resolution,  he  persisted  in  making  no  return, 
when  intreated  to  call,  or  to  order  the  calling  of  the  roll.  The  wri- 
ter of  the  Display  also  avers  in  the  most  absolute  manner,  that  the 
minute  which  Mr.  Brown  cites,  as  bearing,  that  Mr.  Henry  Erskine 
was  appointed  to  clerk  by  turns,  is  a  false  minute,  if  it  refer  to  the  time 
before  the  breach,  being  what  could  not  have  existed  till  after  it.  It 
is  true,  adds  that  writer,  ''  that  Mr.  Hutton  demurred  at  taking  the 
office  of  clerk,  from  the  constancy  of  attendance  which  it  would  require. 
But  no  mention  was  made  of  Henry  Erskine  for  doing  so.  I  was 
the  person  fixed  on,  and  named  as  such  in  the  original  minute.  All 
which  I  am  as  certain  of  as  I  can  be  of  any  thing  that  has  been  trans- 
acted in  my  time."* 

Alex.  Might  not  the  members  who  adhered  to  the  Synod's  decis- 
ion concerning  the  religious  clause  of  some  burgess  oaths  have  submit- 
ted to  the  determination  for  transmitting  that  decision  to  presbyteries 
and  kirk  sessions  ;  while  their  consciences  was  exonerated  by  their 
protestations  ? 

Rup.  They  could  not  have  acquiesced  in  the  manner  in  which  this 
question  was  carried,  without  allowing  the  minority  to  be  the  court ; 
inor  without  allowing  disorders  inconsistent  with  its  constitution, 
such  as,  that  a  court  might  determhie  a  cause  so  important,  as  that 
must  necessarily  be,  which  respects  the  profession  of  religion  in  gen- 
eral, without  hearing  what  is  evidently  necessary  to  the  understand- 
ing of  the  merits  of  the  cause ;  that  parties  may  be  admitted  to  be 
judges  in  their  own  personal  cause;  and  that  any  member  or  mem- 
bers may,  without  any  designation  or  appointment  of  the  court,  and 
at  their  own  hand,  act  as  moderator  and  clerk.  They  could  not  have 
acquiesced  in  tlie  carrying  of  tliis  question  in  the  affirmative,  without 
allowing  a  resolution  as  a  deed  of  the  court,  which  tolerated  the 
swearing  of  an  oath,  which,  as  it  comes  necessarily  to  be  used  and 
applied  at  present,  was  declared  by  another  deed  of  the  same  court 
left  professedly  standing,  to  be  inconsistent  with  tiie  profession  and 
testimony  of  Secoders :  and  considering,  that  Seceders  were  engaged 
by  solemn  oath  in  the  bond  agreed  on  by  the  Associate  Presbytery, 
to  adhere  to  that  profession  and  testimony,  I  do  not  see  how  it  can 
be  denied,  that  this  resolution  involves  them  in  the  guilt  of  allowing 
the  swearing  of  contradictory  oaths.     They  could  not  have  acquiesced 

*  Display,  &c,  pages  425,  436. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  433 

in  the  carrying  of  this  resolution,  without  falling  away  from  their  tes- 
timony against  the'  latitudinarian  scheme  of  church  communion.  It 
appears,  that  the  decision  of  Synod  concerning  the  religious  clause  of 
some  burgess  oaths,  was  all  along  opposed  upon  latitudinarian  prin- 
ciples. The  protesters  against  that  decision  say  in  their  ninth  reason, 
"  Upon  supposition,  that  we  should  grant  that  there  is  sufficient  ob- 
jectire  evidence  unto  all,  that  the  swearing  of  the  clause  condemned 
would  be  doing  a  thing  which  virtually  and  on  the  matter,  is  a  sinful 
receding  from  the  testimony  of  the  day,  which  we  are  professing  to 
hold  ;  yet,  when  the  swearing  of  it  is  but  newly  quarrelled  the  Synod 
ought  rather  to  have  enjoined  mutual  forbearance,  than  to  have  con- 
demned the  present  swearing  of  the  said  clause."  Here  it  is  taught, 
that  though  there  be  sufficient  objective  evidence  to  all  of  the  sinful- 
ness of  this  matter  :  that  is,  though  its  sinfulness  be  plain  enough 
to  any  who  are  not  uncommonly  blind  or  prejudiced  ;  though  it  be 
plainly  enough  backsliding  and  a  profanation  of  the  Lord's  name; 
yet  it  is  to  be  tolerated,  under  a  pretence  of  novelty,  and  on  account 
of  different  sentiments  about  it.  This  cannot  be  denied  to  be  one  of 
these  latitudinarian  tenets  abjured  in  the  bond  agreed  on  by  the  As- 
sociate Presbytery.  But  this  scheme  was  carried  to  a  far  greater 
height  in  the  resolution  which  occasioned  the  breach  ;  for,  by  that 
resolution,  a  practice  was  to  be  tolerated,  which  was  not  only  sinful, 
but  declared  to  be  so  by  a  judicial  decision,  which,  by  this  resolution 
is  professedly  left  standing.  Thus,  the  church  was  to  admit  to  her 
sacramental  comniun  on  persons  who  persisted  obstinately  in  a  prac- 
tice determined  by  her  judicial  deed  to  be  sinful.  This  was  a  flagrant 
instance  of  the  catholic  sacramental  communion,  which  we  formerly 
examined. 

Alex.  The  opposers  of  the  decision  concerning  the  religious  clause 
of  some  burgess  oaths,  represent  the  Synod  which  met  at  .Mr.  Gib's 
house,  as  a  differenc  synod  from  that  which  had  chosen  the  modera- 
tor and  clerk,  and  from  that  to  which  the  elders  had  been  sent  by 
their  several  sessions.  Though  the  person,  who  called  that  nominal 
Synod,  asserted,  in  his  declaration,  that  the  power  of  the  Synod  de- 
volved upon  him  and  his  party  ;  yet,  he  neither  did,  nor  could,  show 
any  warrant  for  his  saying  or  doing  so.* 

RuF.  If  the  friends  of  that  decision  concerning  some  burgess  oaths 
were  the  majority  ;  and  were  holding  the  constitutional  principles  of 
the  Associate  Synod  ;  (two  things,  which  were  certainly  true,)  the 
proposal  of  adjourning  to  another  time  and  place,  could  not  make 
them  another  court.  It  is  vain  to  ask  what  warrant  a  member  had 
to  make  such  a  proposal  ?  for,  in  so  doing,  he  only  made  use  of  a 
privilege  common  to  all  the  members  of  the  court ;  the  privilege  of 
making  any  motion   which  they  judge  proper.     And  if  there  was 

*  Re-exhibition,  &c.  pages  266,  267,  268. 
28 


434  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

nothing  unlawful  in  the  proposal,  it  was  warrantable  for  the  members 
of  the  court  to  agree  to  it,  and  to  act  accordingly.  What  was  ex- 
traordinary in  this  proposal,  was  rendered  necessary  by  the  extraor- 
dinary resolution  which  they  who  voted  on  this  occasion  pretended  to 
have  carried  ;  and  by  the  extraordinary  case  of  the  minority  of  a 
court  assuming  to  themselves  the  name  and  authority  of  the  court  in 
such  a  violent  manner,  as  could  not  be  obstructed  by  any  means  com- 
petent to  an  ecclesiastical  court. 

§  71.  Alex.  There  is  nothing  that  has  raised  such  an  odium  against 
the  friends  of  the  decision  concerning  some  burgess  oaths,  as  their 
pretending  to  depose  and  excommunicate  their  brethren. 

RuF.  This  odium  has  been  much  increased  by  erroneous  doctrine 
about  the  objects  of  excommunication.  This  awful  censure  has  been 
represented  as  having  no  other  than  graceless  persons  for  the  objects 
of  it ;  a  representation  which  is  contrary  to  the  gracious  end  of  the 
ordinances  in  general  which  Christ  hath  given  to  his  church  ;  and 
particularly  to  the  end  of  excommunication  ;  by  which  obstinate  of- 
fenders are  to  be  delivered  to  Satan  for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh, 
that  the  spirit  may  be  saved  in  the  day  of  the  Lord.*  The  justly 
celebrated  Turretine,  in  stating  the  Protestant  doctrine  on  this  head, 
observes,  that  excommunication  may  be  considered  either  with  regard 
to  the  outward  or  the  inward  state  of  the  person  who  is  the  object  of 
it.  As  to  his  outward  state,  it  denotes  a  real  separation  from  the  ex- 
ternal communion  of  the  church,  yet  not  perpetual,  but  for  a  time ; 
that  is,  till  he  manifest  his  repentance.  But  as  to  his  inward  state,  it 
is  not  a  real  expulsion  from  the  mystical  body  of  Christ ;  for  he  who 
is  once  taken  into  that  body,  can  never  be  cast  out  of  it.  We  are 
not  immediately  to  conclude,  that  an  offender  is  simply  and  abso- 
lutely cut  off  from  the  body  of  Christ,  or  that  he  ceases  to  be  a  mem- 
ber of  the  church  in  secret,  and  as  to  his  internal  state  ;  because  he 
is  for  a  time,  according  to  external  discipline,  removed  from  the  so- 
ciety of  the  faithful.  Many  regenerate  persons,  says  Mr.  Rutherford, 
may  go  so  far  in  scandalous  obstinacy,  that  they  are  to  be  excommu- 

*  1  Corinth,  v.  4,  5.  The  terms  used  by  the  apostle  "  to  deliver  unto  Satan  for 
the  destruction  of  the  flesh,  that  the  spirit  may  be  saved  in  the  day  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,"  cannot  mean  a  miraculous  inflicting  of  some  tormenting  pain  or  disease 
upon  the  man's  body ;  or  an  extraordinary  permission  given  to  Satan  for  that 
purpose.  For  if  it  had  been  any  work  of  this  sort,  the  apostle  would  not  have 
blamed  the  Corinthians,  as  he  did,  for  not  having  wrought  it  sooner ;  while  no 
such  thing  was  competent  to  them  ;  nor  could  he  have  sought,  as  he  did,  the  con- 
currence or  assistance  of  the  Corinthians  for  working  it.  He  could  not  have  called 
it,  as  he  did  in  2  Corinth,  ii.  6,  this  punishment,  or,  as  the  original  might  be  ren- 
dered, judicial  censure^  which  was  inflicted  of  many  :  nor  "could  he  have  mentioned 
the  man's  hazard  of  being  swallowed  up  with  ovetrauch  sorrow,  as  the  proper  effect  of 
the  censure ;  without  taking  any  notice  of  the  pain  or  disease,  if  there  had  been 
any  such  effect,  on  his  body.  It  was  not,  therefore,  any  destruction  of  his  body, 
but  of  his  fleshly  corruption,  that  the  apostle  meant ;  the  censure  being  a  means 
of  the  Lord's  institution  for  that  purpose. 

Display  of  the  Secession  Testimony,  pages  103,  103. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  435 

nicated.  This  odium  has  also  been  proposed  by  such  as  have  taught, 
that  there  are  real  violations  of  the  Divine  law,  which  though  they  be 
public  offences,  and  contumaciously  persisted  in,  and  properly  mat- 
ters of  judicial  cognizance ;  yet,  after  all,  can  never  be  any  suffi- 
cient ground  of  excommunication.  This  doctrine  is  contrary  to  what 
our  Lord  has  delivered  in  Matth.  xviii.  15,  16,  17,  18,  as  the  ordi- 
nary and  standing  rule  of  discipline ;  according  to  which  rule,  any 
brother,  who  is  chargeable  with  such  obstinacy,  even  in  any  private 
offence,  as  not  to  hear  the  church,  or  assembly  of  rulers,  when  the 
case  is  regularly  declared  to  them,  is  an  object  of  the  greater  excom- 
munication. The  doctrine  now  mentioned,  is  also  contrary  to  that 
of  the  Reformed  Churches  on  this  head.  According  to  the  order  of 
excommunication,  used  in  the  Church  of  Scotland  under  her  first 
reformation,  "  a  small  offence  may  justly  deserve  excommunication, 
by  reason  of  the  contempt  and  disobedience  of  the  offender."  And, 
in  another  place,  we  have  these  words  :  "  After  all  admonitions, 
both  private  and  public,  are  past,  as  before  is  said  ;  then,  must 
the  church  proceed  to  excommunication,  if  the  offender  remain 
©bstinate.  "* 

The  discipline  of  the  Church  of  France  ordains,  *'  that  process 
should  issue  in  the  higher  excommunication  against  any  of  the  peo- 
ple that  keep  up  a  debate  for  breaking  the  unity  of  the  church,  upon 
any  point  of  doctrine  or  discipline,  or  public  worship  and  order;  and 
that  this  course  should  be  taken  more  especially  with  any  minister  or 
elder,  who  is  found  guilty  this  way,  upon  any  such  point,  contrary  to 
his  former  engagements,  "f 

Many  think  that  the  censures  of  the  church  must  have  been  pros- 
tituted, when  they  were  passed  on  these  pious  and  faithful  ministers, 
who  were  some  of  the  greatest  lights  of  the  age  in  which  they  lived. 
But  no  person  in  the  world  is  beyond  all  hazard  of  falling  into  of- 
fences, and  even,  for  a  time,  into  obstinacy  in  them.  According  to 
the  scriptural  institution  of  the  discipline  of  the  christian  church,  any 
person,  whose  offence  renders  him  justly  liable  to  the  lowest  censure 
belonging  to  that  discipline,  may,  by  persisting  in  his  offence  with 

*  Order  of  Excommuuicaiion,  chapters  ii.  and  iii.  The  church's  power  of  ex- 
communicating the  obstinate  in  public  offences  is  declared  in  the  sum  of  the  first 
Book  of  Discipline,  art.  9,  and  in  the  second  Book  of  Discipline,  chap.  7.  In  con- 
formity to  these  rules,  the  General  Assembly  in  1638,  orduined  procedure  to  ex- 
communication against  those  who,  after  due  admonition,  would  not  forbear  the 
company  of  excommunicated  persons  ; — in  1(340,  against  any  minister,  who  should 
obstinately  continue  to  speak  against  the  covenant  for  religion  and  reformation, 
then  entered  into  by  the  church;— in  1638,  against  any  suspended  minister,  who 
should  obstinately  continue  to  exercise  any  part  of  the  ministerial  office. 

t  As  the  faults  of  church  officers  deserve  the  greatest  censures  ;  so,  in  all  the 
Reformed  Churches,  where  the  free  exercise  of  church  discipline  is  received,  there 
is  the  greatest  severity  of  it  against. church  officers,  and  especially  against  min- 
isters ol  the  word,  when  any  such  are,  upon  just  proof,  convicted  of  scandal. 

Aaron  Bod  Blossoming^  page  314. 


436  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

nnrelenting  obstinacy,  become  liable  to  the  highest :  and  the  Divine 
rule  requires  the  actual  infliction  of  due  censure  in  the  latter  case,  as 
well  as  in  the  former.  The  offence,  however,  of  these  brethren  was 
not  small ;  as  it  consisted  in  justifying  the  practice  of  iSeceders  in 
swearing  an  oath,  which  had  been  judicially  declared  inconsistent 
with  their  testimony,  and  with  the  bond  in  which  they  solemnly  vowed 
adherence  to  that  testimony.  Nor  was  their  offence  small,  in  taking 
such  measure  for  the  defence  of  that  practice,  as  tended  not  only  to 
subvert  the  order  and  constitution  of  the  Associate  Synod,  but  to 
support  and  propagate  the  latitudinarian  scheme  of  church  communion 
which  is  so  much  the  idol  of  the  present  age. 

Some  have  represented  this  censure  as  an  excommunication  of  all 
the  people  called  burgers,  comparing  it  to  the  excommunications  of 
the  Pope  by  which  he  laid  whole  nations  under  his  interdict,  con- 
founding the  innocent  with  the  guilty.  But  this  was  a  groundless 
reproach.  They  who  passed  these  censures,  were,  as  we  have  seen, 
the  majority  which,  at  the  rupture,  constituted  the  Associate  Synod ; 
and  therefore  it  was  competent  to  them,  as  it  is  to  every  court  to  call 
their  own  members  to  an  account ;  and,  in  the  case  of  offences  proved 
against  any  of  their  members,  to  censure  them.  The  persons,  then, 
whom  the  Synod  censured,  were  no  other  than  certain  members  of 
that  court;  and  the  Synod,  in  censuring  them,  proceeded  in  their 
several  cases,  upon  such  particular  and  specific  charges,  as  were  ap- 
plicable to  them  only. 

In  fine,  some  have  said,  that  the  ministers,  who  passed  such  cen- 
sures on  their  brethren,  required  the  approbation  of  them  as  a  term 
of  church  communion.  This  accusation  is  not  only  false  in  fact,  but 
grossly  absurd  ;  as  it  is  notsupposable,  that  the  officers  of  any  church, 
at  least  of  any  Presbyterian  Church,  are  so  unreasonable  as  to  make 
an  approbation  of  the  proceedings  of  church-courts  in  cases  of  dis- 
cipline, a  term  or  condition  upon  which  people  in  general;  ("evv  of 
whom  may  have  any  opportunity  of  being  acquainted  with  such  pro- 
ceedings) are  to  be  admitted  to  sacramental  communion. 

§  72.  Alex.  The  opposers  of  the  Synod's  decision  concerning  some 
burgess  oaths  justly  deplore  the  dispute  between  them  and  the  defen- 
ders of  that  decision  as  very  fruitless,  and  as  having  done  much  injury 
to  interests  of  real  religion  by  alienating  the  affections  of  professors 
from  one  another. 

RuF.  It  is  granted,  that  this  controversy  had  the  common  effect  of 
every  dispute  about  any  matter,  civil  or  religious,  in  which  the  in- 
terests and  feelings  of  depraved  men  are  much  concerned  :  it  irritated 
the  minds  of  those  engaged  in  it,  and  interrupted  the  comfortable  en- 
joyment of  social  intercourse.  But  it  had  also  other  consequences, 
which  were  according  to  the  opposite  sides  which  the  parties  took  in 
the  dispute. 

With  regard  to  those  who  adhered  to  the  decision  concerning  the 


ALEXANDER   AND   RUFUS.  437 

religious  clause  of  some  burgess  oaths,  there  were  two  native  conse- 
quences of  their  adherence  to  it.  One  was  that  they  continued  to 
hold  the  Judicial  Testimony  as  a  term  of  communion  with  them  in 
sealing  ordinances,  according  to  what  had  been  agreed  on  by  the  As- 
sociate Presl)ytery.  The  presbytery,  says  Mr.  Wilson  of  JPerth,  re- 
quire of  all  who  "  accede  to  them,  or  who  come  under  their  presby- 
terial  inspection,  that  they  signify  or  declare  their  approbation  of  the 
judicial  act  and  testimony.  The  plain  and  obvious  meaning  of  this  is, 
that  they  signify  or  declare  their  conjunction  with  the  presbytery  in  the 
same  confession  that  they  make  of  the  truths  of  God.  In  this  res- 
pect, the  presbytery,  and  such  as  make  accession  to  them,  state  them- 
selves a  confessing  body  ;  and  the  confession  which  they  make  is  of 
the  truths  of  God  in  opposition  to  deviations  from  the  same."*  The 
other  consequence  of  their  adherence  to  the  decision  concerning  the 
said  reh'gious  clause,  was  their  continuing  to  go  forward,  according 
to  the  agreement  of  the  Associate  Presbytery,  in  the  practice  of  pub- 
lic covenanting. 

Vi  ith  regard  to  the  opposers  of  the  decision  concerning  the  said 
religious  clause,  the  consequences  of  their  opposition  have  been  ac- 
cording to  the  nature  of  what  they  opposed.  Some  of  them  at  first 
represented  the  swearing  of  that  clause  as  perfectly  agreeable  to  the 
Judicial  Testimony.  But  this  pretence  was  soon  given  up.  They 
found,  that  the  inconsistency  between  the  swearing  of  that  clause  and 
the  approving  of  the  whole  account  which  that  Testimony  gives  of  the 
profession  of  religion  authorised  by  the  laws  of  the  land,  was  too 
glaring  to  be  absolutely  denied.  They  published,  therefore,  an  over- 
ture in  the  year  1755,  pretending  to  point  out  some  mistakes  in  the  his- 
torical part  of  that  Testimony.  A  considerable  time  afterward,  they 
published  their  Ke-exhibition,  containing,  among  other  things,  an 
edition  of  the  Judicial  Testimony ;  in  which  some  passages  of  the 
original  work  are  omitted  and  some  altered ;  though  they  have  not 
been  able  to  establish  the  falsehood  of  the  statement  of  one  fact  in 
the  original  work.f  But  in  the  preface  to  the  Re-exhibition,  there 
is  an  attempt  to  depreciate  the  historical  part,  particularly  in  the  fol- 
lowing words,  which  I  shall  read  :  "  It  becomes  those  concerned 
chiefly  to  know  and  profess  what  is  of  the  utmost  importance,  the 
certainty  of  which  rests  upon  the  infallible  record  of  God  himself,  and 
not  on  the  fallible  narratives  of  men,  which  in  themselves  can  never 
be  a  sufficient  ground  of  our  faith.  To  be  ignorant  or  mistaken  with 
regard  to  the  real  existence  of  some  past  transactions,  in  the  church 
or  state,  transmitted  to  us  upon  human  authorities,  some  of  which  are 
controverted  by  others  of  the  same  class,  and  others  of  them  covered 

*  Continuation,  &c.  chap.  5. 
+  This  is  shown  satisfactorily  in  Mr.  Gib's  account  of  the  Ke-eshibition' 


438  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

with  a  cloud  of  uncertainty,  which  to  us,  at  this  distance  of  time,  is 
almost  impenetrable,  can  never  bf  '^o  criminal,  as  our  ignorance  or 
mistakes  with  respect  to  the  truths  of  God  revealed  in  his  word.  It 
must,  therefore,  be  obvious  to  every  sober  and  unbiassed  christian, 
that  an  attempt  to  elucidate  some  historical  references,  or  even  to 
omit  others,  which  do  not  appear  to  be  sufiQciently  vouched,  cannot 
with  any  degree  of  candor  and  justice  amount  to  a  dropping  of  any 
part  of  the  Testimony,  as  it  is  a  testimony  to  the  truths  of  God  re- 
vealed in  his  word." 

On  this  passage  it  may  be  remarked,  that,  though  it  is  true,  that 
what  is  of  the  utmost  importance  rests  on  the  infallible  record  of  God 
himself,  and  not  on  the  fallible  narratives  of  men  ;  and  though  in 
making  a  comparison  between  the  real  existence  of  some  past  trans- 
actions in  church  and  state,  and  the  truths  of  God  revealed  in  his 
word,  there  is  no  doubt,  that  to  be  ignorant  or  mistaken  with  regard 
to  the  former  is  not  so  criminal  as  our  ignorance  or  mistakes  with  re- 
gard to  the  latter  ;  (just  as  robbing  a  man  of  his  money,  though  it  is 
criminal,  is  not  so  much  so  as  taking  away  his  life  unjustly  ;)  yet  it 
does  not  follow,  that  the  testimony  which  God  is  calling  us  to  main- 
tain against  errors  and  corruptions  in  any  part  of  the  visible  church, 
may  not  be,  in  a  great  measure,  if  not  wholly  dropt,  by  not  owning 
what  comes  to  our  knowledge  by  the  fallible  narratives  of  men.  For 
it  is  plain,  that  the  ground  on  which  we  maintain  a  testimony  against 
the  errors  and  corruptions  of  any  church,  and  particularly  in  the  way 
of  secession  from  her  communion,  is  not  merely  that  such  tenets  are 
errors  and  that  such  practices  are  corruptions ;  a  matter  which  we 
are  to  learn  from  the  word  of  God  alone ;  but  also,  that  such  errors 
and  corruptions  are  tolerated  and  justified  by  the  judicatories  of 
that  church  ;  a  fact  which  cannot  be  known  by  reading  the  Bible, 
or  otherwise  than  by  human  narratives  ;  on  which,  though  fallible, 
while  they  are  attended  with  moral  certainty,  we  are,  in  this  case,  to 
proceed. 

In  a  former  conversation,  it  was  shown,  that  there  are  various  du- 
ties, which  cannot  be  discharged  without  proceeding  upon  human  tes- 
timony ;  of  which  duties,  that  of  testifying  against  the  errors  and  cor- 
ruptions, that  prevail  in  the  visible  church,  is  one.  However  many 
truths  of  God's  word  a  body  of  people  may  profess  and  maintain  in 
the  form  of  a  testimony  ;  yet  if  they  withdraw  from  a  particular 
church,  without  any  historical  proof  of  defection  from  such  truths,  or 
of  the  toleration  of  the  contrary  errors,  as  chargeable  on  that  church, 
their  secession,  in  that  case,  may  be  justly  considered  as  a  sinful  and 
scandalous  schism.  Such  a  narrative,  therefore,  necessarily  belongs 
to  the  ground  of  a  secession  testimony.  The  testimony  of  the  prophets 
and  apostles  did  not  consist  of  abstract  doctrinal  propositions  only ; 
but  included  real  facts.  They  said,  for  example.  From  the  days  of 
your  fathers,  ye  are  gone  away  from  mine  ordinances  ;  ye  have  killed 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  439 

the  Prince  of  life  :  ye  are  removed  from  him  that  called  you  into  the 
grace  of  Christ  to  another  gospel :  ye  observe  days  and  months  and 
times  and  years.  It  is  granted,  that  the  prophets  and  apostles,  in  the 
testimony  they  gave  against  the  errors  and  corruptions  of  persons  and 
churches,  proceeded  upon  the  infallible  knowledge  they  had  of  the 
cases  of  these  persons  and  churches  by  immediate  inspiration  ;  but 
this  is  nothing  against  our  imitating  them  in  this  as  well  as  in  other 
moral  duties,  or  against  our  proceeding,  in  the  ordinary  way,  upon 
the  fallible  narratives  of  men  ;  or,  as  the  scripture  warrants  us  to 
proceed  in  such  cases,  upon  the  testimony  of  a  competent  number  of 
credible  witnesses.  Such  is  the  ground  upon  which  the  confessors  of 
Christ  have  always  proceeded  with  regard  to  the  real  existence  of  the 
errors  and  corruptions  against  which  they  bore  testimony,  ever  since 
the  canon  of  scripture  was  closed.  In  point  of  evidence,  few  narra- 
tives of  fallible  men  have  been  less  liable  to  exception,  or  further  from 
being  covered  with  a  cloud  of  uncertainty,  than  the  historical  part  of 
the  Judicial  Testimony ;  the  facts  there  stated,  being  found,  as  we 
formerly  observed,  in  the  most  public  and  authentic  records  of  the 
kingdom.  And  with  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  facts,  they  are  very 
proper  for  the  place  they  have  in  that  testimony ;  as  they  are  either 
instances  of  the  Lord's  goodness  to  his  people,  and  of  what  good  he 
enabled  them  to  do,  which  are  proposed  as  matter  of  thankfulness  ;  or 
instances,  of  such  public  evils  as  are  standing  grounds  of  the  Lord's 
controversy,  to  be  acknowledged  as  matter  of  humiliation.  Thus,  op- 
position to  the  Synod's  decision  concerning  the  religious  clause  of 
some  burgess  oaths  led  those  engaged  in  it  to  propagate  opinions  con- 
trary to  an  honest  adherence  to  the  Judicial  Testimony.  Conforma- 
ble to  such  opinions  has  been  their  admission  of  people  to  their  com- 
munion in  sealing  ordinances,  without  requiring  of  them  an  acquain- 
tance with  that  testimony,  and  their  not  bringing  ministers  at  their 
ordination  under  an  engagement  to  maintain  it  in  the  terms  agreed 
upon  by  the  Associate  Presbytery.*  It  is  well  known,  that  ever 
since  the  rupture,  which  was  occasioned  by  their  opposition  to  the 
decision  concerning  some  burgess  oaths,  they  have  declined  and  even 
opposed  the  practice  of  public  covenanting,  as  it  was  agreed  on  by 
the  Associate  Presbytery.  And  as  they  broke  with  their  brethren  by 
voting  for  a  resolution  which  was  grossly  latitudinarian,  as  it  allowed 
church  members  to  continue  in  the  practice  of  swearing  an  oath  which 
was  condemned  by  their  own  decision  unrepealed,  as  inconsistent  with 
the  Judicial  Testimony  and  with  the  bond  or  covenant  engagement 
which  they  had  agreed  to  enter  into  for  maintaining  that  testimony ; 
so  it  is  no  wonder,  if  lax  principles  with  regard  to  church  communion 
have  prevailed  among  them.  If  we  may  judge  of  the  decision  con- 
cerning the  religious  clause  of  some  burgess  oaths,  by  the  consequen- 

*  Mr.  Morison's  Present  Duty,  page  98. 


440  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

ces  of  adherence  and  of  opposition  to  it,  we  will  be  led  to  consider  it 
as  most  agreeable  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Presbytery.  For 
the  friends  of  that  decision  considered  themselves  as  bound  to  main- 
tain the  deeds  of  the  Associate  Presbytery,  particularly  their  Judicial 
Testimony,  and  their  act  for  renewing  the  covenants,  National  and 
Solemn  League  ;  while  the  opposite  party  have  not  scrupled  to  de- 
viate from  these  acts. 

Alex.  Does  not  this  affair  show  the  schismatical  spirit  of  the  Se- 
ceders,  and  how  easily  any  collision  of  opinions  may  split  them  into 
factions  ?  I  wonder  how  they  could  think  of  separating  from  the  two 
Erskines  and  Mr.  Fisher,  who  were  more  eminent  in  the  public  es- 
teem as  pious  and  evangelical  ministers,  than  any  other  that  I  know 
belonging  to  the  Secession. 

RiJF.  The  ministers^  vrho  defended  the  decision  concerning  the  re- 
ligious clause  of  some  burgess  oaths,  declared  that  they  did  not  yield 
to  any  in  veneration  and  affection  for  these  fathers.  But  they  found 
themselves  obliged  to  sacrifice  personal  regards  and  heart  attachments 
to  what  they  justly  considered  as  an  important  part  of  the  cause  and 
testimony  of  Jesus  Christ.  On  this  point  I  shall  read  you  a  passa  ge 
of  a  valuable  performance  on  church  communion.*  "  A  single  error,'' 
says  the  judicious  writer  of  that  letter,  "  in  the  church  is  of  dangerous 
consequence.  It  dishonors  God  in  all  the  duties  which  the  church 
conjunctly  performs.  Consider  her  as  bearing  a  testimony  for  the 
truth,  this  error  is  an  exception.  Again,  if  this  error  is  positively  in- 
troduced into  the  worship  of  God,  the  worship  of  the  whole  body  is, 
in  this  article,  absurd  and  inconsistent  with  the  mind  of  God  revealed 
in  his  word.  But  if  it  is  not  introduced,  then  is  the  church  charge- 
able with  sin,  in  neglecting  to  introduce  into  her  worship  what  she 
has  adopted  as  an  article  of  her  creed.  Consider  it  further  as  affect- 
ing their  general  communion  together  by  way  of  exhortation,  admo- 
nition or  reproof;  this  single  error  is  an  exception  to  the  perfection 
thereof.  This  one  sin,  at  least,  they  do  not  warn  against  nor  reprove 
for.  In  a  word,  their  whole  communion  on  this  article,  wherein  they 
err,  is  dishonoring  to  God  and  hurtful  to  themselves.  I  therefore, 
cannot  help  thinking,  that  it  is  better  for  the  church,  respecting  her 
communion,  to  suffer  the  loss  of  persons  than  of  purity.  The  church 
of  God  has,  in  every  age  of  the  world,  suffered  a  diminution  of  her 
visible  members  on  account  of  her  struggling  for  the  maintenance  of 
purity  in  the  matter  of  her  communion.  The  truth  is,  if  the  fear  of 
schisms  were  to  guide  the  people  of  God  in  the  matter  of  their  com- 
munion, I  believe,  they  would  never  stop,  till  they  would  have  neither 
union  nor  communion  ;  that  is,  they  would  be  no  church  at  all.  It 
is,  however,  comfortable  to  think,  that,  if  the  enemy  is  always  striv- 
ing to  break  the  union  of  God's  people,  and  always  throwing  in  some 

*  The  Criterion,  by  Mr.  Muir,  in  Ireland,  near  tlie  end. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  441 

new  bone  of  contention  among  them  for  this  purpose  ;  Christ  is  al- 
ways interceding  at  God's  right  hand  for  the  preservation  of  it.*  As 
to  the  conduct  of  Seceders  with  regard  to  their  brethren  who  op- 
posed the  decision  concerning  some  burgess  oaths,  I  think,  that,  in 
the  main,  it  tends  much  to  their  praise.  They  thereby  signified  to 
the  world  their  firmness  to  the  testimony  they  had  espoused  :  for 
rather  than  countenance  an  oath,  plainly  inconsistent  with  the  pro- 
fession they  had  made,  they,  in  their  infantile  state,  when  few  and  des- 
pised, would  suffer  a  schism  in  their  body." 

Alex.  I  have  heard  that  a  coalition  of  these  two  parties  is  now 
proposed. 

RuF.  It  would  be  lamentable,  indeed,  if  both  parties  were  to  agree 
in  burying  the  witnessing  profession  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  ;  for 
the  preservation  of  which  the  decision  concerning  the  said  reiisrious 
clause  was  manifestly  designed.  But  it  would  be  a  most  desirable 
event,  if  the  parties  would  agree  to  maintain  the  testimony  as  it  was 
stated  by  the  Associate  Presbytery,  and  to  join  in  the  bond  which 
was  agreed  on  by  them  for  the  renovation  of  the  covenants.  National 
and  Solemn  League ;  acknowledging  the  sinfulness  of  their  having, 
in  so  great  a  measure,  given  up  that  good  work,  after  it  was  begun. 
When  church  members  are  brought  to  a  humbling  sense  of  the  evil  of 
the  latitudinarian  schemes,  which  have  so  much  prevailed  in  the  Pro- 
testant Churches,  they  will  not  be  backward  to  acknowledge  the  sin- 
fulness of  the  resolution,  which  occasioned  the  rupture.  They  will 
then  return  to  their  first  standing,  and  will  be  for  a  name  and  praise 
to  the  Lord  Christ  through  the  world.  This  union  is  not  to  be  des- 
paired of ;  for  the  accomplishment  of  it  is  easy  to  him  who  gathereth 
the  outcasts  of  Israel. 

*  John  xvii.  11,  31,22,  23. 


442  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 


DIALOGUE  VI, 

Introduction  of  the  Secession  churcli  into  America — The  unfavorable  reception 
which  the  Seceeding  ministers  met  with  on  their  arrival  in  this  country — The 
support  of  the  Secession  Testimony,  in  this  country,  justified — Occasional 
communion  with  various  denominations  opposed  by  the  Seceders — Errors 
propagated  among  those  of  the  Presbyterian  denomination,  without  being 
judicially  censured— The  singing  of  the  hymns  of  Dr.  Watts  and  others,  in 
public  worship,  an  unwarrantable  innovation — Private  baptism  a  ground  of 
complaint — Public  worship,  without  a  sent  or  called  minister  or  preacher,  an 
unwarrantable  innovation  in  a  constituted  state  of  the  Presbyterian  Church — 
A  church's  assent  to  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  rendered  unavail- 
ing by  her  obstinate  persisting  in  the  open  avowal  and  justification  of  evils 
contrary  to  it — The  Testimony  of  Seceders  consistent  with  that  of  the  wit. 
nesses  for  truth  in  former  ages — The  subordination  of  the  Associate  Presby- 
tery of  Pennsylvania  to  the  Associate  Synod  in  Scotland  justifiable — A  change 
in  the  public  profession  of  the  Seceding  ministers  by  their  union  with  those 
of  the  Reformed  Presbytery— Some  standing  testimony  besides  the  Westmin- 
ster Confession  of  Faith  necessary  in  the  present  state  of  the  church — Con- 
clusion. 

§  73.  Those  of  the  Presbyterian  denomination  in  the  American 
States  having,  many  of  them,  emigrated  from  Scotland,  still  profess 
adherence  to  the  subordinate  standards  of  the  church  there,  as  con- 
formable to  the  word  of  God.  Their  connection  with  the  Church  of 
Scotland,  which,  while  she  retained  her  purity,  was  highly  advan- 
tageous, became,  in  her  declining  state,  an  occasion  of  their  defection. 
In  fact,  the  same  laxness  with  regard  to  church  communion  prevail- 
ing in  this  country,  as  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic,  a  faithful  tes- 
timony against  that  evil  was  no  less  necessary  here  than  there.  Hence 
about  sixty  years  ago,  a  number  of  christians,  lamenting  the  latitudi- 
narian  schemes  and  other  corruptions,  that  were  spreading  in  the 
American  churches,  petitioned  the  Associate  Synod  in  Scotland  to 
send  them  some  ministers  to  dispense  gospel  ordinances  and  to  main- 
tain a  testimony  for  reformation  principles.  In  consequence  of  this 
application,  the  Synod  sent  two  ministers,  Messrs,  Gellatly  and  Ar- 
not,  who,  with  ruling  elders,  constituted  the  Associate  Presbytery  of 
Pennsylvania.  Since  that  time,  they  have  increased  to  such  a  num- 
ber by  others  who  have  come  from  Scotland,  together  with  natives  of 
this  country  who  have  been  called  to  the  ministry,  that  they  now  con- 
stitute the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America.  The  Secession  Tes- 
timony, said  Rufus,  who  being  come  on  a  visit  to  Alexander,  had 
been  mentioning  these  facts — the  Secession  Testimony,  as  it  exhibits 
the  cause  of  the  Reformation  pure  and  entire,  was,  in  my  opinion  a 
most  precious  acquisition  to  the  American  States. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  443 

§  74.  Alex.  I  acknowledge,  with  Mr.  Willison,  that  the  Seceders 
appear  and  declare  for  many  things  valuable  and  excellent.  But, 
though  it  should  be  granted,  that  there  was  some  color  of  reason  for 
their  secession  from  the  Established  Church  of  Scotland,  it  does  not 
follow,  that,  when  they  have  come  to  this  country,  they  ought  to  set 
up  a  separate  communion  from  ours.  There  is  no  oath  of  abjuration 
here,  no  patronage,  no  reading  of  the  act  about  Captain  Porteous,  no 
judicial  condemnation  of  the  Marrow. 

RuF.  I  am  afraid,  that  the  treatment  which  the  Seceding  ministers 
met  with,  as  soon  as  they  came  into  this  country,  gave  them  too  much 
reason  to  set  up  a  separate  communion.  When  two  of  these  minis- 
ters arrived  in  the  year  1*154,  one  of  our  judicatories,  the  presbytery 
of  Newcastle,  published  a  Warning  and  Appendix,  charging  the  Se- 
ceders with  teaching  erroneous  doctrine  concerning  the  gospel  offer, 
the  nature  of  faith,  and  the  obligation  of  the  religious  covenants  of 
our  ancestors  upon  posterity  ;  declaring  their  secession  from  the  Es- 
tabhshed  Church  of  Scotland  to  be  schismatical ;  and  representing 
them  as  seceders  from  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  this  land,  as  well 
as  from  the  Church  of  Scotland.  Our  fathers  of  that  presbytery,  in 
their  Warning,  referred  to,  and  approved,  a  publication  of  a  Mr  De- 
lap,  in  Ireland ;  which  was  a  sort  of  apology  for  the  public  evils 
which  the  Associate  Presbytery  had  solemnly  acknowledged  to  be 
causes  of  God's  wrath  against  the  church  and  nations  of  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland,  as  either  no  evils,  or  matters  of  doubtful  disputation 
among  wise  and  good  men.  Thus,  our  fathers  of  Newcastle  Presby- 
tery, by  their  Warning,  espoused  the  cause  of  the  Estabhshed  Church 
of  Scotland,  and  justified  the  judicatories  of  that  church,  in  condemn- 
ing and  deposing  the  Seceding  ministers.  Nor  have  any  of  our  pres- 
byteries, synods  or  assemblies,  since  that  time,  retracted  the  unfounded 
accusations  of  that  Warning,  nor  given  any  public  intimation  of  their 
being  otherwise  minded,  than  the  presbytery  of  Newcastle  was  in 
1754.  So  that  it  would  be  as  proper  to  ask,  why  we  separate  from 
them,  as  why  they  separate  from  us. 

Alex.  By  your  leave,  Rufus,  I  think  there  is  a  great  difference. 
It  is  well  known,  that  we  are  willing  to  receive  them  into  our  com- 
munion without  finding  fault  with  their  principles  ;  and  we  attend 
on  their  public  administrations  occasionally.  But  they  will  not 
admit  us  to  their  communion,  unless  we  subscribe  to  all  their  punc- 
tilios. 

RuF.  Well,  Sir,  supposing,  that  we  give  them  this  reason  why  we 
separate  from  them,  and  do  not  join  their  communion,  that  they  re- 
quire our  assent  to  unnecessary  punctilios.  They  will  call  upon  us  to 
prove  that  any  of  these  doctrines  or  duties,  to  which  they  require  our 
assent,  are  such  punctilios.  Alas  !  we  have  no  proof :  for  the  points 
which  we  have  been  accustomed  to  consider  in  that  light,  are.  on  in- 
quiry, found  in  the  word  of  God ;  and  are  either  mentioned  or  neces- 


444  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS, 

sarilj  implied  in  the  confession,  catechism,  directory  for  public  worship, 
or  the  form  of  church  government,  which  were  agreed  on  by  the  West- 
minster Assembly  ;  which  we  have  not  yet  renounced.  It  is  vain  for 
us  to  say,  that  in  respect  of  number,  the  Seceders  are  but  an  handful 
compared  with  us.  This  will  only  expose  us  to  the  charge  of  vain 
glory.  It  was  once  the  boast  of  the  Jews  and  Heathens  against  the 
Christians  ;  and  afterwards,  of  the  Papists  against  the  Protestants. 
It  might  be  of  use  when  persecution  was  the  order  of  the  day  ;  but 
will  not  avail  us  with  those  who  allow  nothing  to  determine  contro- 
versies in  matters  of  religion,  but  the  scriptures  of  truth.  >5^ometimes 
it  is  given  as  a  reason  for  not  joining  with  the  Seceders,  that  they  have 
a  great  deal  of  spiritual  pride  ;  that  they  value  themselves  upon  their 
profession,  and  yet  seem  to  be  dead  and  formal  in  religious  exercises; 
and  that  their  practice  is  not  answerable  to  their  profession.  But 
though  there  may  be  much  truth  in  these  charges ;  and  the  Seceders 
often  acknowledge  the  prevalence  of  such  evils  among  themselves ; 
particularly,  in  their  presbyterial  and  synodical  acts  for  fasts.  Yet, 
while  these  evils  are  neither  countenanced  by  the  doctrine,  professed 
by  the  Associate  Church,  nor  tolerate  in  the  exercise  of  her  discipline, 
so  far  as  any  instances  of  such  evils  come  under  the  cognizance  of  her 
courts,  they  cannot  warrant  our  declining  their  sacramental  communion. 
To  make  spiritual  pride  in  the  heart,  or  the  want  of  the  lively  heart-exer- 
cise of  grace,  the  ground  of  our  declining  the  communion  of  any  church 
of  Christ,  is  to  run  into  the  error  of  the  Brownists  and  other  sectaries, 
who  hold  that  the  sins  of  one  communicant  pollutes  the  Lord's  supper 
to  other  partakers  :  an  opinion  which  implies  much  spiritual  pride, 
and  leads  to  a  presumptuous  judging  of  the  hearts  and  states  of  others. 
In  the  mean  time,  I  must  acknowledge,  that  as  nothing  can  be  more 
opposite  to  spiritual  pride,  and  also  lukewarmness,  in  the  performance 
of  religious  duties,  than  the  profession  of  the  Seceders ;  so  I  have  not 
observed  that  they  are  more  addicted  than  others  to  vain  boasting  of 
their  own  righteousness  or  personal  attainments  ;  or  that  they  are  in 
general  less  attentive  than  others  to  the  ordinary  duties  of  religion. 
But  the  most  common  answer  of  our  people  to  the  question,  Why  they 
refuse  to  join  the  Seceders,  is,  That  they  apprehend,  there  is  little  differ- 
ence between  us  and  them  ;  or  that  they  are  bigots ;  meaning,  by  bigots, 
such  as  are  obstinately  attached  to  small  or  insignificant  matters.  But 
if  they  be  asked,  What  these  matters  are  to  which  the  Seceders  are  so  un- 
reasonably attached?  they  either  cannot  specify  any  thing,  or,  if  they 
mention  any  thing,  they  soon  discover,  upon  farther  inquiry,  that  it 
has  never  been  their  concern,  to  examine  whether  it  is  agreeable  to  the 
word  of  God,  or  not. 

With  regard  to  the  reasons  why  the  Seceders  do  not  join  with  us 
in  church  communion,  the  first  that  they  offer,  is,  that  we  have  taken 
a  decided  part  with  the  Established  Church  of  Scotland,  and  have 
made  ourselves  partakers  of  the  guilt  of  her  manifold  corruptions,  by 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  445 

rejecting  and  opposing  a  faithful  testimony  against  them  ;  a  testimo- 
ny, in  adhering  to  which,  they  believe,  a  necessary  stand  is  made  for 
various  truths  revealed  and  duties  enjoined  in  God  s  word. 

Alex.  I  am  persuaded,  that  they  must  renounce  that  testimony  of 
theirs,  now  mentioned,  before  they  can  expect  any  great  prosperity 
as  a  church,  or  that  the  Lord  will  visit  them  with  any  remarkable  out- 
pouring of  his  spirit.* 

RuF.  Why  should  they  renounce  their  testimony  ?  Its  doctrine 
is  no  other  than  that  which  is  taught  in  the  Wesminster  Assembly's 
confession  of  faith,  the  larger  and  shorter  catechisms,  and  the  form  of 
church  government.  ^Vith  rejxard  to  the  facts  which  it  states,  we 
have  found  them  established  by  the  most  authentic  records  and  histo- 
ries of  Great  Britain;  and  Mr.  Willison's  charges  of  falsehood  and 
calumny  altogether  unfounded.  IJut  your  assertion  leads  me  to  ob- 
serve, that  if  it  express  the  mind  of  our  brethren  in  general,  then,  the 
Seceders  must  be  perfectly  riu'ht  in  concluding,  that  we  prefer  the 
cause  of  the  Established  Church  of  Scotland  to  theirs  ;  and  that  we 
deny  the  corruptions  of  that  church  to  be  such  as  will  warrant  their 
secession.  This  is  expressed  in  the  Warning  of  the  Newcastle  Pres- 
bytery ;  nor  has  it  been  disapproved  by  any  of  our  judicatories.  iSo 
that,  even  on  this  ground,  I  cannot  help  thinking,  that  they  who  be- 
lieve the  Secession  Testimony  to  be  a  faithful  exhibition  of  the  cause 
of  God  and  truth,  would  act  inconsistently,  if  they  did  not  decline 
onr  commuion,  as  well  as  that  of  the  Established  Church  of  r^cotland. 
Your  saying,  that  the  Seceders  must  renounce  their  testimony,  before 
they  can  expect  any  remarkable  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  im- 
plies, that  you  do  not  consider  the  public  evils,  against  which  that 
testimony  is  exhibited,  as  real  evils,  or  such  as  ought  to  be  testified 
against :  for,  if  they  were  so,  testifying  against  them  would  be  a  scrip- 
tural duty  ;  and  the  endeavors  of  Seceders  to  discharge  such  a  duty, 
ought  not  to  hinder  them  from  expecting  a  remarkaWe  outpouring  of 
the  Spirit.  While  such  is  our  declared  opinion  concerning  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Seceders,  it  is  no  wonder,  that  they  consider  us  as  taking 
part  with  the  Established  Church  ;  and  allege  our  attachment  to  her 
cause,  as  one  reason,  why  they  refuse  to  join  in  our  church  commun- 
ion. They  also  specify  various  evils,  which,  while  persisted  in  and 
justified,  contribute  to  keep  them  out  of  our  communion. 

§  75.  \LEX.  You  may  expect  to  see  a  phenix  sooner  than  a  church 
without  evils. 

RuF.  But  they  say,  that  the  evils  which  hinder  them  from  joining 
in  our  communion,  are  of  a  particular  description  :  1st,  They  are  ex- 
pressly authorized  by  our  judicatories.  Or,  2nd,  They  are  commonly 
and  publicly  practised  by  persons  in  our  communion,  without  censure, 

*  Letters  addressed  to  certain  members  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Penn- 
sylvania, by  a  Presbyterian,  page  58. 


446  ALEXANDER  AND   EUFUS. 

or  any  faithful  testimony  given  by  our  judicatories  against  them. 
Or,  3d,  They  are  erroneous  tenets,  propagated  by  the  press  or  pul- 
pit, by  some  in  our  communion,  without  being  censured  by  our  judi- 
catories. 

Evils  of  such  a  description,  are  not  to  be  confounded  with  personal 
blemishes  in  the  conduct  of  church  membeis,  or  with  transient  acts  of 
mal-administration  not  persisted  in  by  the  judicatories,  or  with  differ- 
ence of  sentiments  among  church  members  on  some  points  that  have 
never  been  determined  by  any  of  her  acts  or  constitutions.  There 
are  several  things,  against  which  the  Seceders  bear  testimony,  as  evils 
of  one  or  other  of  the  sorts  now  mentioned  :  such  as,  1st,  Occasional 
communion  with  Independents,  Baptists,  or  Methodists.  2d,  Erron- 
eous doctrine  propagated  by  ministers  in  our  communion  without  any 
judicial  censure.  3d,  Our  new  Psalmody.  4th,  Our  private  baptism. 
5th,  Our  public  worship  in  vacant  congregations.  6th,  The  practice 
of  swearing  by  kissing  a  book.  7th,  Public  lotteries  for  collecting 
money.  8th,  Taking  the  Mason  oath.  I  am  apprehensive,  that  on 
the  principles  exhibited,  agreeably  to  the  scripture  in  the  Westminster 
Confession,  catechisms,  form  of  church  government  and  directory  for 
worship,  we  cannot  defend  our  refusal  of  the  reform,  which  the  Sece- 
ders desire,  in  these  particulars. 

§  76.  Alex.  I  allow,  that  each  of  them  deserves  our  serious  con- 
sideration. 

RuF.  With  regard  to  the  first,  the  Seceders  think,  that  occasional 
communion  with  Independents,  Methodists  and  Baptists,  is  contrary 
to  the  duty  of  adhering  to  presbyterial  church  government,  as  the 
only  form  authorised  by  Christ  in  his  church ;  that  such  laxness  in 
church  communion  tends  to  harden  the  people  of  these  denominations 
in  their  errors  and  disorders  ;  that  this  practice  cannot  be  reconciled 
to  the  duty  of  not  suffering  sin  upon  our  brother,  without  rebuking 
him ;  nor  to  the  duty  of  keeping  pure  and  entire  all  the  worship  and 
ordinances  which  God  hath  appointed  in  his  word  ;  nor  to  the  duty 
of  walking  according  to  what  we,  as  Presbyterians,  professing  adhe- 
rence to  the  scriptural  plan  of  reformation  agreed  on  by  the  Westmin- 
ster Assembly,  have  attained.  For  such  reasons  as  these,  the  Sece- 
ders entreat  us  by  all  the  regard  that  we  have  for  the  honor  of  Christ 
and  the  interest  of  his  church,  (both  which  they  believe,  are  deeply 
concerned  in  this  matter,)  that  we  would  renounce  this  occasional 
communion,  or  coalition  with  the  open  opposers  of  Christ's  truth. 

Alex.  I  condemn  this  scheme  of  church  communion  as  much  as 
you.  How  can  two  walk  together,  unless  they  are  agreed  ?  Al- 
though I  believe,  there  are  gracious  persons  among  the  Episcopali- 
ans Methodists  and  Baptists  :  and  I  long  for  the  day,  when  all  shall 
see  eye  to  eye  in  Divine  things  ;  yet  I  do  not  think  that  holding  com- 
munion with  them  is  the  way  to  affect  that  desirable  end.  I  think,  I 
mayv  euture  to  say,  that  this  is  the  prevailing  sentiment  on  this  point.* 
*  Letters  addressed,  &c.  pages  22,  23. 


ALEXANDER  AND  KUFUS.  447 

RuF.  With  regard  to  occasional  communion,  it  is  much  the  same 
with  the  catholic  communion,  the  pleas  for  which  were  considered  in 
our  former  conversations.  It  is  unnecessary  to  repeat  what  was  then 
advanced.  But  I  beg  leave  to  take  notice  of  two  things.  The  first 
is,  that  mentioning  the  parties,  whose  communion  you  decline,  you 
omit  the  Independents  or  Congregationalists ;  though,  I  suppose, 
you  disapprove  their  opinions,  such  as,  that  the  churches  mentioned 
in  the  New  Testament  were  only  congregational ;  each  of  them  con- 
sisting of  such  a  number  as  did,  or  could,  all  meet  in  one  place,  for 
tlie  exercises  of  religious  worship  ;  that  the  exercise  of  government 
and  discipline  of  the  church  belongs  to  the  members  of  the  church  in 
common,  while  the  ministers  and  elders  have  no  other  power  or  au- 
thority, than  that  of  a  president  or  moderator,  to  collect  the  votes  of 
the  people  ;  that  there  is  no  representative  church  ;  and  that  minis- 
ters and  elders  assembled  have  no  ofher  authority  over  any  congrega- 
tion, than  that  of  proposing  advice,  which  has  no  authority  till  it  be 
sanctioned  by  the  votes  of  the  congregation.  Now  it  is  evident  that, 
according  to  the  Westminster  Assembly,  the  presbyterial  form  of 
church  government  is  as  truly  a  part  of  our  holy  religion  contained 
in  the  scriptures,  as  any  other  article  of  it ;  and  that  Independency 
is  opposite  to  that  form  of  government,  as  well  as  Episcopacy. 
Hence  it  appears,  that  we  ought  not  to  walk  together  in  church  fel- 
lowship with  the  Independents,  more  than  with  Episcopalians ;  since 
in  relation  to  the  form  of  church  government  instituted  by  Christ,  we 
are  not  agreed  either  with  the  one,  or  with  the  other  We  have  rea- 
son to  believe,  that  there  are  many  gracious  persons  among  the  In- 
dependents, and  we  are  to  pray  earnestly,  that  Grod  may  bring  them 
to  the  acknowledging  of  the  truth  in  this  respect.  But  as  you  justly 
observe  concerning  some  other  sects,  holding  church  communion  with 
them  is  not  the  way  to  effect  that  desirable  end. 

The  other  thing  I  take  notice  of,  is,  that  you  speak  with  much  un- 
certainty as  to  the  opinion  that  prevails  in  our  church,  concerning  oc- 
casional communion.  You  speak  of  the  prevailing  sentiment,  with- 
out saying  among  whom  it  prevails. 

Alex.  I  thought  it  might  easily  be  understood,  that  I  meant,  among 
the  ministers  and  other  members  of  our  church. 

RuF.  Admitting  this  explanation,  youjventure  on  the  assertion  with 
hesitation — Nay,  you  only  pretend  to  think  you  may  venture  on  it. 
After  all,  I  am  afraid  yon  have  ventured  farther  than  is  consistent 
with  fact.  We  have  church  communion  with  the  Independents  or 
Congregationalists  belonging  to  the  general  association  of  Connecti- 
cut. In  the  year  1802,  six  Presbyterian  ministers  entered  into  an 
agreement  at  Belford  court  house,  in  Virginia,  with  a  number  of  Bap- 
tist and  Methodist  preachers,  to  hold  ministerial  and  sacramental 
communion  together.* 

«•  Surprising  Accounts  of  the  Revival  of  Religion  in  the  United  States,  page  36. 


448  .       ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

Some  of  our  brethren  in  the  ministiy  have  not  scrupled  to  avow 
their  approbation  of  this  Latitudinarian  scheme  of  communion.  Mr. 
Patillo^  in  his  sermons  and  tracts  recommended  by  Dr.  Smith,  declares 
his  readiness  to  admit  to  the  Loral's  table  a  Methodist  preacher  with 
his  people,  without  requiring  of  them  any  recantation  of  their  errone- 
ous opinions.  Dr.  iM'Corkle,  in  his  sermon  on  the  duty  of  sacrificing, 
lays  down  a  scheme  of  church  communion,  which  would  comprehend 
such  as  deny  the  equality  of  three  persons  of  the  Godhead,  justifica- 
tion through  the  imputed  righteousness  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  invincible 
efficacy  of  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  regeneration,  and  many  oth- 
er articles  of  scripture  doctrine,  which  are  not  to  be  found  in  his  list 
of  terms  of  communion.  While  such  facts  as  these  are  still  occurring, 
I  do  not  understand  how  any  of  us  can  safely  represent  it  as  the  pre- 
vaiUng  sentiment  of  ministers  and  others  of  our  communion  that  it  is 
unwarrantable  for  us  to  have  sacramental  communion  occasionally 
with  Episcopalians,  Methodists  or  Baptists.  Besides  what  evidence 
does  our  church  give  that  this  is  her  prevailing  sentiment  ?  Has  our 
General  Assembly  or  any  of  our  Synods  given  a  judicial  declaration  of 
the  sinfulness  of  such  occasional  communion,  or  a  judicial  warning 
against  the  practice  of  it  ? 

Alex.  The  preciseness  of  the  Seceders,  on  this  head,  makes  many 
censure  them  as  uncharitable  in  their  judgment  concerning  christians 
of  other  denominations. 

RuF.  Their  judicial  declaration,  which  I  shall  now  read  to  you,  is 
sufficient  to  clear  them  of  this  aspersion  "  We  regard,''  say  they, 
"  all  those  as  true  christians,  who  trust  in  the  Lord  Jesus  alone  for 
salvation,  as  he  is  made  of  God  unto  us  wisdom,  righteousness,  sanc- 
tification  and  redemption  ;  and  who  manifest  the  truth  of  their  faith 
by  a  conversation  becoming  the  gospel.  In  refusing  to  enter  into 
church  fellowship  with  such  of  them  as  hold  principles  we  cannot  ap- 
prove, or  oppose  what  we  believe  to  be  duty,  we  cannot  see  *b^.t  we 
act  uncharitably  towards  them.  An  oppo.^ite  conduct  would  confirm 
them  in  what  is  wrong,  and  hurt  us  ;  seeing,  in  the  present  state  of 
thino'S,  it  would  be  considered  as  an  evidence  that  we  were  gone  into 
the  prevailing  indifference  of  the  age,  esteeming  all  these  truths  which 
are  subjects  of  controversy  among  christians,  circumstantial  or  small 
matters,  not  worth  contending  for  ;  an  opinion,  which  we  judge  con- 
trary to  the  word  of  God  and  exceedingly  pernicious  to  his  church.  To 
do  any  thing  which  implies  a  disregard  to  the  truth,  is  not  the  way  to 
brino-  others  to  a  proper  acknowledgment  of  it  To  give  countenance 
to  corruptions  is  not  the  way  to  remove  them. " 

§77.  Alex.  Let  us  now  proceed  to  the  second  charge,  which,  you 
say,  the  Seceders  bring  against  our  church,  viz  :  that  of  false  doctrine 
propagated  without  censure  by  the  press  or  pulpit ;  but  I  see  not  how 
they  can  support  it. 

KuF.  One  thing  is  obvious,  that  those  of  our  communion,  who  have 
written  against  them,  have  furnished  them  with  too  much  matter  of 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.        •  449 

accusation  on  his  head.  Mr.  Finlay  and  Mr.  Smith,  who  wrote 
against  Mr.  Gellatly,  maintained,  that  the  covenants,  entered  into  by 
a  particular  church  for  religion  and  reformation,  have  no  direct  or 
formal  obligation  upon  that  church  or  the  branches  of  it,  as  continu- 
ing to  subsist  in  succeeding  generations ;  and,  particularly,  that  the 
National  Covenant  of  Scotland  ;  and  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant 
of  the  three  nations  have  no  perpetual  obligation  upon  these  nations.* 
They  also  contended  against  Mr.  Grellatly,  that  a  church  ought  to  seclude 
from  her  terms  of  communion  such  articles,  though  known  and  ac- 
knowledged by  her  to  be  Divine  truths,  as  are  matter  of  dispute  among 
holy  and  learned  men,  who  are  agreed  in  the  great  fundamentals  re- 
relating  to  doctrine,  worship,  discipline  and  government,  f  These  dis- 
putants also  censured  the  act  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  concerning 
the  doctrine  of  grace,  for  representing  the  gospel  as  a  deed  of  gift  or 
a  promise  of  Christ,  directed  to  sinners  of  Adam's  family  as  such  ;  and 
for  describing  Saving  Faith  as  a  real  persuasion,  that  Christ  is  ours 
upon  the  ground  of  that  free  grant  or  promise  ;  a  persuasion  neces- 
sarily implied  in  the  act  of  trusting  in  him  for  justification  and  all  the 
other  blessings  of  salvation.  J  The  denial  of  this  appropriating  per- 
suasion in  the  nature  of  Saving  Faith  is  considered  by  Seceders  as  a 
dangerous  error  ;  for,  say  they,  if  men  do  not  take  the  gospel  promise 
for  the  immediate  ground  of  their  dependence  on  Christ  as  their  Sa- 
viour ;  then  they  will  be  led  to  seek  the  ground  of  it  in  something 
else,  in  something  that  they  feel  or  do  ;  whereas  it  is  not  in  the  na- 
ture of  saving  faith  to  have  any  other  ground,  than  the  word  of  divine 
faithfulness,  or  thus  saith  the  Lord.  It  would  be  improper  at  pres- 
ent to  dwell  on  these  points,  which  we  formerly  considered.  But  the 
number  of  errors  propagated  from  the  press  has  been  increased  by 
the  writers  in  defence  of  what  is  called  the  new  psalmody.  One  of 
these  writers  teaches,  "  that  it  is  an  error  to  say,  that  the  Spirit  of 
Christ  dictated  what  we  have  written  in  the  Old  Testament  as  well 
as  what  we  have  in  the  New  to  be  a  perpetual  rule  to  the  church  on 
earth. "  Is  not  this  much  the  same,  as  if  he  had  said,  that  what  is 
taught  according  to  2  Tim.  iii.  16,  in  the  answer  to  the  second  ques- 
tion of  our  Shorter  Catechism  is  an  error  ?||  The  same  writer  teaches, 
"  that  the  medium,  through  which  the  mercy  and  grace  of  God  are 
communicated ;  and  how  the  communication  thereof  is  consistent  with 
the  other  Divine  attributes  and  government,  appears  to  be  the  dis- 

*  Warning  of  the  Newcastle  Presbytery  with  an  appendix  relating  to  the  Sece- 
ders, pages  32 — 35. 

t  Ibid,  page  47. 

t  See  "Warning  of  the  Newcastle  Presbytery;  and  Mr.  Smith's  Vindication  of  it. 

I  Mr.  Black's  Examination  of  a  Discourse  on  Psalmody,  page  7. 
29 


450  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

covery  of  the  New  Testament;"  that  the  Redeemer  or  God's  An- 
ointed One,  mentioned  Psal.  xix.  14,  and  Ixxxiv.  9,  or  ADONAI 
THE  Lord,  for  whose  sake  Daniel  ix.  17,  prays  ^'  that  God  would 
cause  his  face  to  shine  upon  his  sanctuary,"  is  not  to  be  understood  of 
Christ  as  Mediator ;  and  that  when  Christ  says  to  his  disciples,  "  Hith- 
erto ye  have  asked  nothing  in  my  name,"  he  means,  "that  the  Old 
Testament  did  not  teach  the  disciples  or  any  other  before  Christ 
spake  these  words  to  rely  upon  and  plead  with  God  the  merits  of 
Christ  as  the  one  only  Mediator  between  God  and  man  ;  nor  to  ask 
and  expect  the  pardon  of  sin,  sanctification,  direction  r.nd  consolation 
on  account  of  Christ's  doing  and  suffering."*  Is  not  this  contrary 
to  our  Confession  of  Faith,f  which  teaches  us,  according  to  John  viii. 
56,  fleb.  xi.  13,  that  the  elect  "  under  the  Old  Testament  had  faith 
in  the  promised  Messiah,  by  whom  they  had  full  remission  of  sins  and 
eternal  salvation ;  and  that  there  are  not  two  covenants  of  grace, 
but  one  and  the  same  under  various  administrations."  This  writer 
also  teaches  "  that  the  whole  design  and  use  of  the  types  of  the  Old 
Testament  dispensation  were  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  were  to 
come  after,  and  not  of  those  who  lived  before  the  great  Antitype 
made  his  appearance. "J  Is  not  this  also  contrary  to  our  confession, 
which  declares,  according  to  Heb.  viii.  ix.  x.  and  other  places  of 
Scripture,  "  that  the  covenant  of  grace  was  administered  under  the 
law  not  only  by  promises  and  prophecies,  but  also  by  sacrifices,  cir- 
cumcision, the  paschal  lamb,  and  other  types  and  ordinances,  delivered 
to  the  people  of  the  Jews ;  all  fore-signifying  Christ  to  come,  which 
were  for  that  time  sufficient  and  efficacious,  through  the  operation  of 
the  Spirit,  to  build  up  the  elect  in  faith  on  the  promised  Messiah." — 
Another  zealous  advocate  for  the  new  psalmody  teaches,  that,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  sufferings  and  exaltation  of  Christ,  he  is  entitled  to  a 
distinct  worship  never  before  paid  him  :  that,  according  to  a  passage 
which  he  quotes  with  high  approbation  from  Bishop  Sherlock,  in  these 
words  :  "as  the  adoration  paid  to  God  the  Father  is  founded  upon 
his  being  the  Creator  of  all  things  ;  so  the  worship  paid  to  Christ,  is 
founded  in  this,  that  he  was  slain,  and  did  by  his  blood  redeem  us ; 
and  that,  when  he  purchased  mankind  at  the  price  of  his  own  blood, 
and  they  became  his  by  the  strictest  bonds  of  justice  and  gratitude  ; 
there  arose  a  new  relation  between  the  Redeemer  and  the  redeemed.  "§ 
But  it  cannot  be  proved,  that  the  worship  paid  to  Christ,  in  conse- 
quence of  his  sufferings  and  exaltation,  was  any  new  sort  of  worship, 

*  Ibid,  pages  78,  79,  80—83,  83. 

t  Chap.  vii.  sect.  5  and  6. 

J  Ibid,  page  93. 

§  Mr.  Lata's  Discourse  on  Psalmody,  pages  71,  73. 


ALEXANDER  AND  EUFUS.  451 

or  that  it  had  any  other  foundation  than  what  it  had  under  the  Old 
Testament ;  even  his  having  the  same  Godhead,  the  same  absolute  in- 
dependence, necessary  existence  and  infinite  perfection  with  the  Fath- 
er. Nor  can  it  be  admitted,  that  the  relation  between  the  Redeemer 
and  the  redeemed  did  not  subsist  under  the  Old  Testament.  Job  ac- 
knowledged this  relation  in  his  own  case,  when  he  said,  '*  I  know  that 
ray  Redeemer  liveth."  It  is  true^  that  the  motives  to  the  worship  of 
Christ,  arising  from  his  sufferings  and  exaltation,  are  now  under  the 
New  Testament  dispensation  set  in  a  clearer  light ;  but  these  motives 
cannot  be  said  to  be  new  in  this  sense,  as  if  they  had  been  totally  un- 
known under  the  Old  Testament ;  for  they  were  revealed  in  the  first 
promise  that  was  given  to  fallen  man,  and  were  afterwards  made 
more  and  more  manifest  to  the  church.  In  fine,  is  not  the  doctrine 
of  Mr.  Lata  on  this  point  evidently  inconsistent  with  that  of  our  con- 
fession of  faith,  which  teaches  us,  "  that,  although  the  work  of  re- 
demption was  not  actually  wrought  by  Christ,  till  his  incarnation  ; 
yet  the  virtue,  efficacy  and  benefits  of  it  were  communicated  to  the 
elect  in  all  ages,  successively  from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  in 
and  by  these  promises,  types  and  sacrifices,  wherein  he  was  revealed, 
and  signified  to  be  the  seed  of  the  woman  who  should  bruise 
the  serpent's  head,  and  the  Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world,  being  yesterday  and  to-day  the  same  and  for  ever?"*  "Re- 
ligious worship  is  to  be  given  to  God  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy 
Spirit,  and  to  him  alone  : — And  since  the  fall  not  without  a  Me- 
diator, "f 

Alex.  The  authors  of  a  publication  entitled.  Evils  of  the  Work,^ 
represent  some  of  our  ministers  as  teaching  errors  ;  but  they  mention 
only  two,  Mr.  Patillo  and  Dr.  M'Corkle. 

RuF.  Several  gross  errors  have  been  pointed  out  in  Mr.  Patillo 's 

*  Confess,  chap  viii.  §  6.        t  Chap.  xxi.  §  2. 

X  The  occasion  of  this  publication  was  a  remarkable  work,  which,  about  the  be- 
ginning of  this  century,  prevailed  for  some  years  in  the  United  States  under  the 
name  of  a  revival  of  religion.  The  subjects  of  it  were  distinguished  by  such  bodily 
agitations  and  convulsive  spasms,  as  those  formerly  mentioned  with  which  many 
in  Scotland  were  seized  under  the  ministrations  of  Mr.  Whitefleld  and  some  other 
ministers  in  the  years  1741  and  1742.  The  purport  of  the  publication,  now  men- 
tioned, was  a  warning  against  evils  which,  there  was  reason  to  believe,  attended 
this  work.  In  this  warning,  no  asperity  of  language  was  used;  and  no  other  ac- 
count was  given  of  the  work,,  than  what  was  taken  from  the  letters  and  other 
communications  of  its  friends  and  advocates.  An  anonymous  answer  in  some 
letters,  addressed  to  the  ministers  who  concurred  in  this  warning,  appeared  soon 
after.  These  letters  were  written  in  the  style  of  bitter  invective.  The  ministers, 
however,  who  were  so  treated,  have  no  reason  to  regret  this  publication  ;  which, 
notwithstanding  its  defects,  was  an  honest  endeavor  to  give  people  seasonable 
warning  against  the  dangerous  error  of  thinking  themselves  subjects  of  the  saving 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  account  of  uncommon  bodily  agitations,  on  account 
of  imaginary  ideas  of  the  object  of  our  faith  and  worship,  or  on  account  of  joys  or 
sorrows  which  are  merely  the  effect  of  these  ideas.  It  was  also  a  warning  against 
ascribing  to  that  blessed  work  any  corruption  in  the  communion  of  the  church, 
or  any  disorders  in  the  exercise  of  her  public  worship. 


452  ALEXANDER  AND   RUFUS. 

sermons  and  tracts,  such  as,  that  there  are  some  in  heaven  employed 
in  teaching  infants  and  pious  Pagans  upon  their  arrival  there  ;  that 
the  human  soul  of  Christ  existed  from  the  beginning  of  the  world  i 
that  it  was  possible  for  him,  while  on  earth  to  have  been  guilty  of 
sin  ;  that  it  is  doubtful,  whether  it  is  good  divinity,  to  call  Christ  the 
eternal  Son  of  God  in  any  other  sense,  than  as  his  soul  existed  prior 
to  all  creatures  ;  and  that  the  proceeding  of  the  Holy  Spirit  from  the 
Father  and  the  Sou  was  not  from  all  eternity.  With  regard  to  Dr. 
M'Corkle,  he  shows,  by  his  list  of  terms  of  communion,  that,  in  his 
opinion,  there  are  very  few  articles  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith,  that  ought  to  be  considered  in  that  light.  He  says,  there  is 
one  article  of  that  confession,  which,  on  investigation,  he  cannot  sub- 
scribe ;  which  is,  that  the  light  of  nature  is  not  sufficient  to  give  that 
knowledge  of  God  and  of  his  will,  which  is  necessary  to  salvation. 
He  declares,  that  he  sees  a  few,  and  only  a  few,  more  difficulties  on 
the  Arminian  side,  than  on  the  Calvinistic ;  and  he  is  not  positive, 
that  this  preponderance  has  not  arisen  from  early  education ;  and 
therefore,  it  is  a  doubtful  matter  with  him,  whether  he  has  any  real 
ground  to  prefer  the  Calvinistic  system  to  that  of  the  Westminster 
divines,  or  not.* 

Alex.  I  have  good  authority  for  saying,  that  these  two  ministers 
have  been  censured  by  the  judicatures  to  which  they  respectively  be- 
long, and  that  they  recanted  their  errors,  f 

RuF.  I  wish  you  would  say  what  that  authority  is,  or  at  what  time 
and  place  they  were  censured.  I  shall  read  the  following  passage 
of  a  performance  of  the  Rev.  James  Rogers,  of  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas  and  Georgia,  published  in  the  year 
1796,  about  two  years  after  Dr.  M'Corkle's  sermon  on  the  doctrine 
and  duty  of  sacrificing  was  printed.  '*  I  might  have  pointed  out," 
says  he,  "  several  defections  from  the  truth,  which  individuals  belong- 
ing to  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  have  been,  and  are  guilty  of ; — 
yet,  as  far  as  I  can  learn,  they  never  censured,  or  even  discounte- 
nanced them  in  their  preaching  and  publishing  their  erroneous  opin- 
ions. Have  they  ever  censured  the  Rev.  Samuel  M'Corkle,  for  at- 
tempting to  vilify  creeds  and  confessions ;  and  yet  making  a  creed  of 
his  own,  which  opens  a  door  for  Arians,  Socinians,  Arminians,  Uni- 
versalists,  &c.  to  join  in  communion  with  him  ?  Have  they  discoun- 
tenanced the  Rev.  H.  Balch,  in  preaching  and  publishing  a  sermon 
vilifying  the  book  of  Psalms,  and  confounding  the  ordinances  of 
prayer  and  praise?  No;  instead  of  these  gentlemen,  and  others 
of  the  same  stamp  with  them,  being  brought  to  the  bar  of  the  Synod, 
and  dealt  with  as  men  of  corrupt  minds,  endeavoring  to  sow  tares 

*  See  his  Sermon  on  the  doctrine  and  duty  of  Sacrificing,  and  an  Appendix, 
printed  in  1794. 

t  Letters  addressed,  &c.  page  37. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  453 

instead  of  wheat,  the  Synod  have,  (almost  every  member  of  it,)  been 
assiduous  to  spread  their  publications,  and  cast  a  cloak  over  their 
deformities."* 

From  this  quotation,  it  appears  rather  improbable,  that  Dr.  M'Cor- 
kle  was  censured  before  Mr.  Rogers  published  his  performance  :  nor 
do  I  know,  that  he  has  ever  been  called  to  account  for  any  of  his 
tenets  since  that  time. 

As  to  the  case  of  Mr.  Patillo,  I  own,  I  am  ignorant.  But  if  we 
reckon  his  opinions  to  be  dangerous,  they  ought  to  be  expressly  con- 
demned by  our  judicatures  ;  and,  if  he  has  been  censured  by  any 
presbytery  or  synod,  their  procedure  in  that  matter,  and  his  recanta- 
tion, ought  to  be  published  ;  in  order  that  the  satisfaction  may  extend 
as  far  as  the  offence.  It  would  be  for  Mr.  Patillo's  honor,  and  ours 
too,  that  this  acknowledgment  of  the  errors  just  now  mentioned,  should 
be  as  well  known,  as  the  errors  themselves. 

Alex.  That  these  two  solitary  instances  of  unsoundness  in  the  faith 
are  all  that  ever  could  be  brought  forward  against  the  ministers  of 
the  Presbyterian  church,  is  to  me  an  evidence,  that  it  is,  for  its  mem- 
bers, the  soundest  church  in  the  world. f 

RuF.  I  am  afraid,  that  it  is  a  rash  assertion,  that  no  other  minis- 
ters of  our  communion  than  these  two,  have  ever  been  charged  with 
unsoundness  in  doctrine  by  Seceders.  They  complained,  before  any 
of  these  two  appeared,  that  the  terms  of  our  communion  were  loose, 
and  calculated  to  tolerate  the  erroneous.  They,  who  in  their  pub- 
ic teaching  wrong  the  truth,  are  unsound  ministers.  <'But,"  says 
Mr.  Gellatly,  "  it  is  evident  from  the  Warning  and  Appendix  of  the 
presbytery  of  Newcastle,  that  they  have  wronged  the  truth."  In  the 
passage  just  now  recited,  from  a  publication  of  Mr.  Rogers,  he 
speaks  of  others  belonging  to  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas,  besides  Dr. 
M'Corkle,  who  are  chargeable  with  defection  from  the  truth.  I  can- 
not say,  that  I  am  so  particularly  acquainted  with  the  present  state 
of  all  the  churches  in  the  world,  as  to  know  how  many  of  them  would 
allow  such  gross  errors  to  be  openly  propagated  by  their  ministers. 
But  I  am  persuaded,  that  whatever  instances  of  this  sort  are  found  in 
any  of  the  reformed  churches,  they  are  contrary  to  their  first  consti- 
tutions and  confessions  of  faith.  No  such  doctrine  could  have  been 
preached  or  published  by  a  minister  of  the  Church  of  Scotland, 
without  censure,  in  the  period  of  the  first  reformation,  between  the 
years  1560  and  1596  ;  or  in  the  period  of  the  second  reformation,  be- 
tween the  years  1638  and  1649.  Degenerate  as  the  times  are,  I 
hope,  that  this  is  still  the  case  in  some  particular  churches.  But 
though  there  were  in  the  churches  a  general  relaxation  of  discipline 
and  defection  from  truth,  our  sin,  in  neglecting  to  use  the  authority 

*  Yindication  of  some  important  Truths,  pages  35,  36. 
t  Letters  addressed,  &c'  page  32. 


454  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

with  which  Christ  hath  intrusted  his  servants,  for  purging  out  error 
and  corruption,  would  not  be  'thereby  excused,  or  even  extenuated  : 
fcr,  at  such  a  time  especially,  ministers  and  others,  who  desire  to  be 
found  faithful,  ought  to  appear  on  the  Lord's  side.  At  such  a  time, 
a  particular  church  ought  to  study  to  obtain  the  commendation  given 
to  the  church  in  Philadelphia  ;  that  she  kept  the  word  of  Christ^ s 
patience.  When  the  enemy  cometh  in  like  a  flood  ;  then  the  Spirit 
of  the  Lord  shall  lift  up  a  standard  against  him,  in  the  faithful  testi- 
mony which  he  will  enable  his  servants  to  maintain  against  the  evils 
that  are  breaking  in.  Further,  we  ought  to  beware  of  thinking  the 
evil  of  two  ministers  teaching  error,  without  censure,  a  small  matter. 
A  little  leaven  leaveneth  the  whole  lump.  The  contagion  of  error 
usually  makes  rapid  progress.  The  apostle  says  concerning  the  Gal- 
atians,  I  marvel  that  ye  are  so  soon  removed  from  him  that  called 
you  into  the  grace  of  Christ  to  another  gospel. 

Alex.  The  gentlemen's  mentioning  these  two  ministers,  in  the 
pamphlet  concerning  the  revival  of  religion,  can  be  imputed  to  no 
other  cause,  than  a  desire  to  blacken  the  character,  and  sully  the  glory 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church.* 

RuF.  What  the  secret  desire  or  motive  of  these  persons  was,  it  be- 
longs to  God,  not  to  us,  to  judge  : — But  I  am  sure,  that  when  our 
Lord  Jesus  pointed  out  the  errors  of  the  public  teachers  of  the  Jew- 
ish Church ;  and  when  Paul  declared  the  doctrine  of  some  teachers, 
(whether  they  were  two  or  more,)  in  the  Church  of  Galatia  to  be 
contrary  to  the  gospel  of  Christ,  our  Saviour  and  his  servant  Paul 
meant  no  harm  to  these  churches,  bat  good.  In  the  present  case,  it 
was  not  impossible,  that  the  authors  of  the  pamphlet  in  question, 
might  have  no  thought  or  desire  of  blackening  the  character  or  sul- 
lying the  glory  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  when  they  mentioned 
some  errors  taught  by  these  ministers.  They  might  intend  no  more 
than  what  they  have  expressed  :  that  is,  to  show,  that  the  work  cal- 
ed  a  revival  did  not  effect  a  reformation  in  the  public  state  of  our 
church  ;  to  which  reformation  belongs  the  censuring  of  erroneous 
teachers  ;  and  also,  a  particular  condemnation  of  their  errors ;  and  a 
plain  assertion  of  the  truth,  in  opposition  to  them.  Nor  is  there 
any  probability,  that  we  shall  be  brought  to  such  a  reformation  by 
revivals  that  are  begun  and  carried  on  according  to  the  same  prin- 
cipleS;  on  which  the  revivals  under  Mr.  Whitefield's  administra- 
tions proceeded.  If  these  gentlemen  had  said  in  general,  that  we 
ought  to  purge  out  erroneous  teachers  from  our  communion  ;  we 
would  have  been  apt  to  say,  that  they  could  not  point  out  any  such 
teachers  in  our  communion  ;  and  that  they  were  confounding  the 
innocent  with  the  guilty.  But,  in  specifying  two  erroneous  teachers 
amongst  us,  they  have  dealt  plainly  and  faithfully  with  us.     It  is 

*  Ibid  page  33. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  455 

unreasonable,  as  well  as  uncharitable  to  suppose,  that  they  seek  to 
sully  the  glory  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States ; 
while  they  consider  themselves  as  belonging  to  the  Presbyterian  church 
in  these  states. 

Alex.  Dr.  M'Corkle's  terms  of  communion  are  not  so  bad  as  the 
tremendous  oath,  which  is  made  the  term  of  communion  by  the  Asso- 
ciate Presbytery.* 

RuF.  It  is  but  a  mean  artifice  of  some,  unworthy  of  our  imitation, 
to  continue  to  give  ill  names  to  persons  or  things,  when  they  have 
nothing  of  consequence,  but  the  ill  names  to  allege  against  them. 
When  we  were  considering  this  oath  or  bond  of  the  Associate  Pres- 
bytery, we  could  not  find,  that  it  is  an  engagement  to  testify  against 
any  thing,  but  what  is  manifestly  sinful  ;  or  to  contend  for  any  thing, 
but  what  is  evidently  a  truth  revealed,  or  a  duty  enjoined  in  the  word 
of  God.  As  to  the  facts  referred  to  in  the  bond,  it  is,  as  was  ob- 
served, grossly  absurd  to  suppose,  that  those  who  enter  into  it  swear 
to  the  truth  of  them  :  for  that  is  supposed  to  be  sufficiently  ascertain- 
ed by  other  human  testimony.  And  we,  found,  that  in  other  duties, 
as  well  as  in  this,  we  proceed,  and  ought  to  do  so,  upon  human  testi- 
mony. We  have  also  seen,  in  what  sense  the  Associate  Presbytery 
made  joining  in  the  bond  the  term  of  communion.  There  is,  how- 
ever, a  great  difference,  or  rather  a  diametrical  opposition,  between 
their  term  and  Dr.  M'Corkle's  terms.  His  terms  are  for  introducing 
a  profane  syncretism,  or  communion  with  Socinians,  Universalists, 
and  other  gross  heretics : — Whereas,  the  term  of  the  Associate  Pres- 
bytery is  an  engagement  to  contend  and  testify  against  all  such  un- 
scriptural  communion.  Dr.  M'Corkle's  terms  are  for  laying  aside 
all  concern  to  hold  fast  the  profession  of  faith — the  term  exhibited  by 
the  Associate  Presbytery  is  for  promoting  that  concern.  Dr.  M'Cor- 
kles's  terms  lead  men  to  take  up  with  mere  sounds  and  syllable,  with- 
out any  regard  to  the  true  import  of  the  language  of  scripture. 
Thus,  one  of  his  terms  of  communion  is.  That  there  is  a  Father,  Son 
and  Holy  Spirit.  Now,  these  are  mere  sounds,  without  any  mean- 
ing ',  while  he  does  not  determine,  as  the  scriptures  and  the  Associate 
Presbytery  do,  whether  the  Son  be  God,  equal  with  the  Father  ; 
whether  he  be  the  Son  of  God  by  an  external  and  incomprehensible 
generation ;  and  whether  the  Holy  Spirit  be  the  Most  High  God,  or 
a  created  Spirit,  or  no  person  at  all,  or  only  an  attribute  or  quality, 
or  an  operation.  We  might  go  through  the  most  of  his  terms  in  the 
same  manner.  In  a  word.  Dr.  M'Corkle's  terms  are  a  desertion  of 
the  whole  reformation  cause,  which,  as  Protestants  and  Presbyte- 
rians, we  profess  to  be  clearly  founded  on  the  scriptures : — Whereas, 
the  term  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  is  nothing  more  or  less  than  an 
honest  and  faithful  adherence  to  the  whole  of  that  cause. 

*  Letters  addressed,  &c.  pages  22,  23. 


456  ALEXANDER  AND  EUFUS. 

After  all,  the  Doctor  pleads  in  his  own  defence,*  that  his  view  of 
the  terms  of  communion  is  entirely  agreeable  to  two  propositions  con- 
tained in  a  pastoral  letter,  proposed  by  a  committee  of  the  Synod  of 
the  Carolinas,  which  the  whole  Synod  approved,  and  directed  to  all 
the  churches  under  their  care.  The  propositions  are,  ''  1st,  that  no 
one  thing  be  proposed  as  ^a  term  of  communion,  unless,  in  doctrine, 
it  be  essential,"  [as  he  understands  it,  to  the  very  existence  of  the 
christian  religion  :]  "  and,  in  practice,  contrary  to  some  express  com- 
mand. 2d,  That  they,  who  shall  at  last  commune  together  forever 
in  heaven,  may  very  justly  hold  communion  with  each  other  on 
earth." — After  quoting  these  propositions  from  the  pastoral  letter, 
the  Doctor  adds  ;  "  I  have  only  attempted  to  mark  these  doctrines 
that  are  essential,  and  to  distinguish  them  from  those  that  are  not 
so." — Now  it  is  not  at  all  probable,  that  the  Synod  would  censure 
Dr.  M'Corkle  for  pursuing  the  plan,  which  they  themselves  had  laid 
down  in  their  pastoral  letter.  Indeed  that  Synod  appears,  from  the 
passages  of  the  letter  now  quoted,  to  be  deeply  infected  with  the 
leaven  of  his  lax  principles.  From  such  instances  as  these  now  ad- 
duced, the  Seceders  have  some  reason  to  say ;  We  have  no  sufficient 
evidence  of  the  orthodoxy  of  these  ministers  as  a  body,  while  many 
of  them  openly  avow  their  adherence  to  such  erroneous  tenets,  as  have 
now  been  mentioned  ;  and  therefore^  we  decline  attending  on  their 
public  administrations,  f 

§  78.  Alex.  We  have  dwelt  long  enough  on  Dr.  M'Corkle's  opin- 
ions. Let  us  now  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the  third  article 
complained  of  by  Seceders,  which  is,  our  singing  hymns  of  human  com- 
posure in  public  worship.  Why  do  the  Seceders  make  such  a  noise 
about  our  singing  such  compositions  as  contain  nothing  but  scripture 
truth,  and  tend  to  animate  our  devotion. 

RuF.  It  is  easy  to  state  their  objections  to  our  practice  on  this 
head.  1st,  They  judge,  that  by  this  practice,  we  disregard  the  author- 
ity of  God  in  appointing  the  Psalms  given  by  the  inspiration  of  his 
Spirit  to  be  sung  in  the  solemn  worship  of  his  church.  By  the 
Psalms,  they  mean  those  parts  of  the  scriptures  bearing  the  titles  of 

*  See  the  Preface  to  his  Sermon  on  Sacrificing. 

t  It  adds  much  to  the  grievance  of  Seceders  on  the  head  of  erroneous  doctrine 
taught  in  the  communion  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  United  States,  That  the 
scheme  of  errors  called  Hopkinsianism  has  not  been  judicially  condemned  by  that 
body,  nor  any  judicially  censured  for  teaching  such  errors  as  these;  That  God 
causes  sin  by  a  positive  efficiency ;  that  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin  is  not  impu- 
ted to  his  posterity ;  that  there  is,  strictly  speaking,  no  other  sin  but  actual  sin. 
That  the  vicarious  atonement  of  Christ  is  of  such  a  nature,  that  the  sinner  might 
lawfully  be  punished  after  the  sufierings  of  his  Substitute  ;  that  there  is  no  other 
imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to  believers,  than  their  enjoyment  of 
the  fruits  of  it ;  that  sinners  are  as  really  able  to  repent  and  believe  before  regen- 
eration as  after  it.  For  a  particular  account  of  the  Hopkinsian  opinions,  the  rea- 
der is  referred  to  Ely's  Contrast. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  457 

Psalms  or  Songs  ;  particularly,  the  book  of  Psalms.  These,  the  Se- 
ceders  believe,  God  appointed  to  be  sung  in  the  solemn  worship  of 
his  church.  Hezekiah  and  the  princes  commanded  the  Lerites  to 
sing  praises  to  God  in  the  words  of  David  and  of  Asaph  the  seer, 
2  Chron.  xxix.  30.  With  regard  to  the  authority  by  which  all  the 
regulations  concerning  the  singing  of  the  Levites  were  established,  we 
are  informed,  that  it  was  the  commandment  of  the  Lord  by  Ms  proph- 
ets, Terse  25.  These  songs  were  delivered  by  the  inspired  writers  to 
be  sung  in  the  public  worship  of  the  church,  according  to  1  Chron. 
xvi.  7,  and  according  to  the  inscriptions  of  the  Psalms. 

The  authority  of  the  Old  Testament,  (which  the  Seceders,  agreea- 
bly to  our  confession  of  faith,  consider  as  the  same  with  that  of  the 
New,)  binds  us  to  continue  in  the  practice  of  singing  the  Psalms 
given  by  Divine  inspiration  ;  as  being  a  practice  which  has  never  been 
abrogated.  They  are  much  confirmed  in  this  belief  by  observing, 
that  the  multitude  and  variety  of  the  scripture  songs  are  such,  that 
the  people  of  God,  in  all  the  changes  of  their  condition,  have  never 
been  at  any  loss  to  find  some  part  of  these  songs  exactly  adapted  to 
their  case,  giving  them  lively  impressions  of  the  omniscience  and  good- 
ness of  the  Divine  Author,  in  foreseeing  each  of  their  cases,  and  fur- 
nishing them  with  such  suitable  words  of  reproof,  instruction  and  con- 
solation. It  is  true,  there  are  many  truths  more  fully  stated  and  de- 
clared in  other  parts  of  scripture,  than  in  the  Psalms ;  but  these 
truths  are  implied,  or  supposed  and  proceeded  upon  in  the  Psalms ; 
which  the  Seceders  regard  as  comprising  a  system  of  songs  and  hymns 
sufficient  to  answer  all  the  purposes  of  singing  in  the  solemn  and  pub- 
lic worship  of  the  church. 

2d.  The  Seceders  urge,  that  the  singing  of  human  compositions 
in  the  solemn  and  public  worship  of  the  church,  is  not  warranted  by 
any  precept  or  example  to  be  found  in  the  word  of  God.  Hence, 
they  consider  those  who  adhere  to  this  practice,  as  chargeable  with 
mixing  something  of  human  invention  with  the  instituted  worship  of 
God.  They  regard  our  singing  these  hymns  of  human  composure, 
instead  of  the  inspired  Psalms,  in  the  same  light  with  Jeroboam's 
observation  of  the  feast  of  tabernacles  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the 
eighth  month,  instead  of  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  seventh  month  ;  the 
month  in  which  God  appointed  it  to  be  observed.  In  short,  they  de- 
clare, they  cannot  help  looking  upon  this  practice  as  a  superstitious 
innovation  in  the  worship  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  and  as  one  of 
the  causes  of  God's  wrath  against  this  generation. 

3d.  The  Seceders  complain,  that  their  grievance  on  this  head  has 
been  nothing  lessened,  but  rather  increased,  by  the  manner  in  which 
the  singing  of  these  human  composures  in  public  worship  has  been 
defended.  The  advocates  for  this  practice,  have  advanced  such 
opinions,  in  defending  it,  on  the  defects  of  the  Psalms,  and  of  the 
whole  scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament^  on  the  difference  between  the 


458  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

worship  of  Jesus  Christ  under  the  Old  Testament,  and  under  the 
New  ;  on  the  warrantableness  of  instrumental  music  in  New  Testa- 
ment worship,  and  on  other  subjects  ;  as  appear  to  be  inconsistent 
with  the  doctrine  taught,  according  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  in  the 
Westminster  Confession'  of  Faith  and  Catechisms.  The  Psalms, 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  indited  to  promote  our  devotion,  have  been 
represented  as  damping  it ;  and  the  words  and  forms  of  the  Psalms, 
when  translated/  have  been  denied  to  be  any  more  the  word  of  God, 
than  the  words  and  forms  of  the  hymns  of  human  composure ;  and  that 
it  is  not  necessary,  in  translating  the  scriptures,  to  preserve  the 
phraseology  of  the  original.  The  opinion,  that  some  have  expressed 
in  defending  our  new  psalmody,  namely,  that  the  words  of  scripture, 
even  when  literally  and  justly  translated,  are  no  more  the  words  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  than  English  is  Hebrew  or  Greek,  has  been  shown, 
I  think,  to  be  a  Deistical  opinion.* 

Alex,  In  the  heat  of  controversy,  even  sensible  men  are  some- 
times carried  into  extremes.  But  we  have  a  sufficient  warrant  for 
singing  in  solemn  worship  such  hymns  as  we  ourselves  compose,  as 
well  as  those  we  find  in  the  book  of  Psalms,  in  Col.  iii.  16,  where 
the  apostle  exhorts  us  to  sing  psalms  and  hymns  and  spiritual  songs. 
The  Seceders,  from  an  obstinate  attachment  to  their  favorite  opin- 
ion, dislike  this  text,  as  much  as  the  Arians  do  the  7th  verse  of  the 
fifth  chapter  of  the  1st  epistle  of  John.  The  book  of  Psalms  never 
obtained  these  various  titles,  nor  was  known  by  them  ;  but,  on  the 
contrary,  the  name  of  Psalms  was  appropriated  to  it.  The  apostle, 
by  these  various  names  of  such  different  derivation,  did  not  mean  that 
book  exclusive  of  all  others,  nor  indeed  any  one  collection  of  compo- 
sitions then  extant. 

Rup.  We  should  not  say,  that  the  Psalms  never  obtained  these 
various  titles ;  nor  were  known  by  them ;  since  the  words  psalms, 
hymns,  and  songs  are  an  exact  translation  of  the  Hebrew  titles  of  the 
Psalms  ;f  since  the  ^Greek  words,  so  rendered,  are  all  found  in  the 
titles  of  the  Psalms  in  the  Septuagint  translation  of  this  book.  When 
Josephus  speaks  of  David's  hymns  and  songs,  I  suppose  every  reader 
understands  him  as  speaking  of  the  Psalms.  Indeed,  I  think  it  can- 
not be  denied,  that  there  are  hymns  and  spiritual  songs  in  the  book  of 
Psalms  :  and  if  so,  it  follows,  that  we  do  what  the  apostle  exhorts  us 
to  do  ;  that  is,  we  sing  psalms,  hymns,  and  spiritual  songs,  when  we 
sing  the  compositions  contained  in  that  book. 

Alex.  But  can  it  be  proved,  that  these  are  meant  exclusively,  or 
that  we  should  sing  no  other  in  public  and  solemn  worship  ? 

RuF.  This  part  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  is  called  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles  biblos  psalmon,  the  book  of  Psalms.  From  their  use  of  this 
title  we  conclude,  that  the  Psalms,  not  only  considered  separately, 

*  See  Vindicise  Cantus  Dominici,  or  a  Vindication  of  Scripture  Psalmody. 
Pages  98—113,  248,  249. 

+  Mitsmarinij  Tehillim^  Shirim. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  459 

but  as  forming  a  collection  or  system,  are  of  Divine  authority.  We 
have  indeed  other  songs  in  scripture,  such  as,  those  of  Hezekiah  and 
Habakkuk.*  Hezekiah  concludes  his  song  with  these  words  :  "  The 
Lord  was  ready  to  save  me  ;  therefore  we  will  sing  my  songs  to  the 
stringed  instruments  all  the  days  of  our  life  in  the  house  of  the  Lord." 
Hezekiah  here  expresses  his  resolution  to  employ  the  remainder  of 
his  days  in  celebrating  the  praises  of  his  Divine  Deliverer  ;  but  does 
not  say,  that  his  preceding  meditation,  as  here  recorded,  was  to  be 
sung,  like  the  songs  in  the  book  of  Psalms,  in  the  ordinary  public 
worship  of  the  temple.  If  this  writing  of  Hezekiah  had  been  de- 
signed for  that  purpose,  it  would  probably  have  been  placed,  (as  Vi- 
tringa  on  this  passage  says,  he  believes,  was  the  case  with  other  songs 
of  Hezekiahf)  in  that  book.  This  song  was  not  necessary,  on  ac- 
oount  of  the  subject  of  it,  as  a  supplement  to  the  book  of  Psalms,  as 
there  are  several  in  that  book,  such  as  the  38th,  the  39th  and  90th, 
on  the  same  subject.  So  there  are  several  psalms  concernin,^  the 
same  illustrious  events  that  are  described  in  the  song  of  Habakkuk, 
such  as  the  68th  and  the  76th.  With  regard  to  the  words  in  this 
song,  which  are  rendered  in  our  translation,  to  the  chief  musician 
on  my  stringed  instrument,  it  may  be  observed,  that  while  the  word 
neginoth  is  found  in  the  inscription  of  the  4th,  6th,  54th,  67th,  and 
Y6th  psalms  ;  but  in  none  of  them  has  it,  as  here,  the  pronominal 
affix  rendered  my ;  a  circumstance  which  leads  us  to  consider  the 
word  neginoth,  as  respecting  the  personal  exercise  of  the  prophet, 
rather  than  the  joint  exercise  of  the  singers  in  the  temple.  But 
though  it  had  been  the  case,  that  these  and  other  parts  of  scripture, 
bearing  the  title  of  songs,  were  sometimes  warrantably  sung  in  sol- 
emn and  public  worship  of  the  church ;  yet  it  would  not  follow,  that 
we  may  warrantably  sing  in  that  worship  portions  of  scripture 
which  bear  no  such  title  ;  and  far  less  does  it  follow,  that  we  may 
sing  in  that  worship  songs  or  hymns,  which,  as  such,  cannot  at  all 
be  pretended  to  be  given  by  Divine  inspiration.  As  it  was  the 
prerogative  of  Jehovah  to  add  to  the  canon  of  scripture  ;  so  it  was 
his  prerogative  to  add,  if  it  had  been  necessary,  to  the  system  of 
psalms,  which  he  had  given  by  the  inspiration  of  Holy  Spirit  to  be 
sung  in  the  public  and  solemn  worship  of  his  church.  But  this  only 
serves  to  show  the  impious  presumption  of  men's  attempts  to  add  to 
that  system. 

I  can  easily  see  the  reason  why  the  Arians  abhor  the  text,  you 
cited,  in  the  first  epistle  of  John,  because  it  expressly  asserts,  (what 
these  heretics  deny)  that  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the'  Holy  Spirit, 
are  one  in  respect  of  their  Divine  essence  or  being.     But  to  affirm, 

*  Isaiah  xxxviii.    Habakkuk  iii. 
+  Non  est  mihi  dubium  quin  extent  ejus  compositionis  aliqua  in  odis  Davidicis. 


460  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

that  the  Seceders  as  much  dislike  the  other  passage  you  cited  in  the 
third  chapter  of  the  epistle  to  the  Colossians,*  because  they  are 
against  the  making  of  hymns  by  persons  that  are  uninspired  for  the 
purpose  of  being  sung  in  solemn  and  public  worship,  and  against  the 
use  of  them  according  to  such  a  purpose,  is  quite  unreasonable ; 
while  there  is  nothing  in  the  passage  now  referred  to  about  hymns 
or  songs  of  that  particular  description.  If  it  had  been  either  ex- 
pressed or  necessarily  implied  in  this  text,  that  the  psalms,  hymns, 
and  spiritual  songs  used  in  solemn  or  formal  worship  were  to  be 
of  human  composure,  it  would  have  been  formidable  to  the  tenet 
of  the  Seceders  ;  but  as  it  is,  I  think,  we  must  yield  the  cause  to 
them,  unless  we  can  produce  some  other  text,  which  is  more  to  the 
purpose. 

Alex.  At  present,  I  would  rather  decline  entering  largely  into  the 
merits  of  the  cause.  The  contest  has  been  triumphantly  managed  by 
the  reverend  and  venerable  Messrs.  Black  and  Lata.f  But  it  seems 
absurd  to  say,  that  we  may  not  use  such  songs  in  our  solemn  wor- 
ship, as  express  our  praises  of  God  for  the  incarnation,  obedience, 
atonement,  and  resurrection  of  the  Divine  Mediator,  as  events  which 
have  already  taken  place. 

RuF.  It  is  true,  we  cannot,  in  this  conversation,  enter  largely  into 
the  merits  of  every  particular  that  comes  under  our  review.  What 
we  assign,  however,  as  a  reason  for  our  adherence  to  any  side  of  a 
question  ought  to  be  something  that  appears  satisfactory.  But  to 
say  that  such  a  cause  has  been  triumphantly  managed  by  two  of  our 
ministers,  you  can  hardly  suppose  will  satisfy  my  mind,  especially, 
when  that  which  has  been  advanced  against  them,  on  the  part  of  the 
Seceders,  remains,  to  this  day,  unanswered.  With  regard  to  the  re- 
mark you  added,  I  observe,  that  the  faith  of  God's  people,  even  un- 
der the  Old  Testament,  always  rested  upon  Christ's  obedience  and 
atonement,  as  if  they  had  been  already  finished  ;  and,  as  if  God's  ac- 
ceptance of  them  had  been  already  manifested  in  his  resurrection  and 
ascension.  Hence  these  events  are  celebrated  in  the  Psalms,  as  if 
they  had  been  past  events.  ''  They  pierced  my  hands  and  my  feet  : 
they  gave  me  gall  for  my  meat,  and  in  my  thirst  they  gave  me  vine- 
gar to  drink.  Thou  hast  ascended  on  high  :  thou  hast  led  captivity 
captive.  The  stone  which  the  builders  rejected  is  become  the  head  of 
the  corner."  Dare  we  say,  that  in  singing  these  and  the  like  expres- 
sions the  people  of  God  do  not  sing  praises  to  him  for  Jesus  Christ 
as  already  crucified  and  exalted  ?  Dare  we  deny,  that  the  Holy 
Spirit,  in  giving  these  expressions  to  be  sung  in  solemn  worship,  in- 
tended that  they  should  be  used  and  applied  in  praising  God  for 

*  Letters  addressed,  &c.,  page  38. 
t  Mr.  Porter's  Revival  of  Religion  Delineated,  a  Synod  Sermon.    Pages,  11,  13. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  4G1 

Christ's  finished  work  ?  On  the  other  hand,  if  it  was  the  design  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  that  they  should  be  so  used  and  applied,  is  there  no 
impiety  in  teaching,  that  these  parts  of  the  Psalms  are  not  well 
adapted  by  the  infinite  wisdom  of  God  to  that  end  ? 

Alex.  There  is  one  plain  simple  argument,  which  satisfies  myself 
with  respect  to  the  propriety  of  singing  what  the  Seceders  call  human 
composures  in  the  worship  of  God.  It  is  this  :  If  we  are  to  use  our 
own  words  in  prayer  and  preaching,  provided  they  are  agreeable  to 
the  word  of  God,  why  not  in  praising  also  ?* 

RuF.  To  this  the  Seceders  have  returned  a  very  plain  answer. 
God  hath  given  us  a  book  or  system  of  Psalms,  and  hath  command- 
ed us  to  sing  them  in  his  worship  ;  but  he  has  nowhere  in  the  scrip- 
tures signified,  that  the  duties  of  prayer  and  preaching  are  rightly 
performed  by  the  mere  repetition  of  a  prescribed  form  of  words.  It 
is  evident,  that  we  cannot  join  together  in  singing  the  praises  of  God 
in  his  worship,  without  some  prescribed  form.  We  have  in  our  Bi- 
ble, forms  of  psalms  or  songs  adapted  to  every  occasion,  on  which  we 
are  called  to  sing  his  praise  :  the  question  is,  which  of  these  forms  are 
we  to  prefer  on  such  occasions  ?  Those  which  God  hath  given  by 
the  immediate  inspiration  of  his  Holy  Spirit,  and  which  he  has  ap- 
pointed to  be  sung  in  his  worship  ;  or  human  composures,  which  have 
no  such  authority  ?  Which  psalmody  are  we  to  prefer  ?  That  which 
is  certainly  from  Heaven,  or  that  which  we  know  to  be  of  men  ?  Be- 
sides, if  we  admit  this  reasoning  from  the  use  of  our  own  words  in 
prayer  to  the  use  of  them  in  singing,  I  cannot  see,  why  we  should  not 
also  admit  the  reasoning  of  the  advocates  for  liturgies  and  set  forms 
of  prayer  from  the  use  of  set  forms  in  singing.  There  is  hardly  any 
church  without  some  established  form  of  psalmody.  Amongst  our- 
selves, Dr.  W^atts's  Imitation  has  obtained  a  sort  of  establishment ; 
and  why,  may  not  Episcopalians  say,  should  we  not  have  a  common 
form  of  prayer  established  among  us,  as  well  as  a  form  of  psalmody  ? 
I  know  not  how  we  can  confute  such  reasoning  showing  the  difference 
between  singing  and  prayer  in  this  respect ;  without  showing,  that 
there  is  a  warrantable  use  of  a  set  form  of  words  in  the  one,  but  not 
in  the  other.  The  words  we  use  in  prayer,  whether  we  use  the  words 
of  scripture  or  others,  expressing  sentiments  or  desires  agreeable  to 
the  scriptures,  must,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  exercise,  be  consid- 
ered, in  their  tenor  or  connexion,  as  our  own  words.  But  the  words 
we  sing  are  often  not  our  words  to  God,  but  God's  words  to  us,  words 
of  doctrine,  reproof,  direction,  or  instruction  ;  such  as  those  of  the  1st, 
57th,  49th,  50th,  and  other  Psalms.  It  is  a  pity  that  any  should  be 
so  uncandid  as  to  deny  such  a  plain  truth.  It  is  also  inconsistent 
with  candor  to  impute  to  the  Seceders  a  superstitious  attachment  to 
what  is  called  Rouse's  version  of  the  Psalms    They  prefer  it  as  the  most 

*  Letters  addressed,  &c.  page  30. 


462  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

correct  verse-translation  in  our  language.  They  have  reason  for  this 
preference  from  its  having  undergone  the  correction  both  of  the  West- 
minster Assembly  and  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland.  They  disapprove  the  singing  of  Dr.  Watts's  Imitation  in 
public  and  solemn  worship,  because  it  is  not  a  version  of  the  Psalms 
at  all.  It  was  never  intended  to  be  so  by  the  author,  as  appears  by 
his  preface  and  the  title  of  the  work  as  published  by  himself  He  ac- 
counted much  of  the  matter  and  the  style  in  general  of  the  Psalms,  as 
they  stand  in  the  Old  Testament,  unsuitable  to  New  Testament  wor- 
ship ;  and  therefore  he  did  not  mean  to  preserve  the  whole  matter  of 
the  Psalms,  or  their  style,  but  to  express  so  much  of  the  matter  as  he 
judged  suitable  to  his  purpose,  not  in  the  language  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, that  is,  in  their  own  language,  but  in  the  language  of  the  New 
Testament.  Hence  the  title  of  "A  Version,  or  An  Improved  Yer- 
sion,"  in  the  editions  of  that  work  lately  printed,  must  seem  to  be  an 
imposition  on  the  public* 

Alex  It  has  been  so  common  to  hear  disputants  call  one  another 
uncandid,  that  the  accusation  is  now  little  regarded. 

KuF.  It  may,  however,  be  sometimes  well  grounded ;  as  well  as 
some  of  the  charges  of  injustice  which  we  continually  hear  people 
bring  against  their  neighbors  in  their  civil  affairs  ;  and  is  it  not  even 
more  necessary  to  distinguish  between  justice  and  injustice  in  contro- 
versies about  matters  of  religion,  than  in  those  about  civil  affairs  ? 

§  79.  Alex.  Let  us  now  proceed  to  consider  private  baptism,  which 
is  a  fourth  article  in  which  the  Seceders  are  seeking  a  reform.  The 
authors  of  the  pamphlet,  entitled,  the  Evils  of  the  Work,  say,  that 
private  baptism  is  allowed  by  our  form  of  discipline  ;  which  says, 
there  may  be  cases  when  it  is  expedient  to  administer  this  ordinance 
in  private  houses.  But,  if  this  is  an  error,  the  apostles  were'  guilty 
of  it ;  as  in  the  case  of  the  Jailor  and  his  household,  recorded  in  the 
xvi.  chap,  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  with  other  instances,  which  I 
could  mention.  If  this  is  the  meaning  of  these  gentlemen,  concerning 
private  baptism,  the  discipline  of  the  Presbyterian  church  allows  it — 
if  this  is  not  their  meaning,  they  either  betray  great  ignorance,  or 
wish  to  slander  her  ;  for  her  form  of  discipline  allows  nothing  more 
than  I  have  mentioned. 

RuF.  I  think.  Sir,  that  neither  you  nor  I  can  be  ignorant  of  what 
the  Seceders  hold  with  regard  to  priva.te  baptism.  They  do  not  say, 
that  it  is  unlawful  to  baptise  in  private  houses  in  two  cases  :  1st, 
Where  there  is  no  organized  or  constituted  church  or  congregation; 
as  appears  to  have  been  the  case,  where  the  Ethiopian  Eunuch,  and 
the  Jailor  with  his  family  were  baptised.     2d,  Even  in  a  constituted 

*  On  the  subject  of  psalmody  the  reader  is  referred  to  Vindicice  Cantns  Doniinici 
mentioned  in  a  former  note,  to  a  recent  valuable  publication,  entitled,  An  Apology 
for  the  Book  of  Psalms,  in  five  letters,  by  Gilbert  M'Master,  A.  M.  and  to  a  sermon 
on  the  same  subject,  by  Mr.  Walker. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  463 

church  or  congregation,  where  it  is  accompanied  with  the  preaching 
©f  the  word,  and  after  a  public  intimation  of  it  made  to  the  congre- 
gation :  for,  I  suppose  you  have  heard,  oftener  than  once,  of  a  Se- 
ceding minister  on  the  Lord's  day  intimating  to  the  people  of  his 
congregation  his  intention  of  preaching  and  administering  baptism  in 
a  private  house  on  some  following  day  of  the  week.  So  that  the 
baptism  which  the  Secedeis  disapprove,  in  private  houses  in  the 
bounds  of  a  constituted  church  or  congregation,  is  that  which  is  not 
accompanied  with  the  public  preaching  of  the  word,  according  to  an 
intimiition,  calling  the  people  of  the  congregation  together  to  attend 
on  these  ordinances.  The  Church  of  Scotland  discharged  the  admin- 
istration of  baptism  in  private  ;  that  is,  in  any  place,  or  any  time, 
when  the  congregation  is  not  orderly  called  together,  to  wait  on  the 
dispensing  of  the  word  ;  which  is  agreeable,  as  Stewart  in  his  Col- 
lections tells  us,  to  the  6th  article,  chap.  ii.  of  the  Discipline  of  the 
French  Church.  The  Westminster  Assembly,  in  their  Directory, 
say,  that  baptism  is  not  to  be  administered  in  private  places,  or  pri- 
vately, but  in  the  place  of  public  worship,  and  in  the  face  of  the  con- 
gregation, where  the  people  may  most  conveniently  see  and  hear. 
These  constitutions  are  in  direct  opposition  to  the  private  baptism 
which  the  Seceders  disapprove  :  that  is,  when  the  people  are  not  regu- 
larly called  together  to  hear  the  word  preached.  Whereas,  it  seems 
rather  to  be  countenanced  by  the  omission  of  the  limitations  just  now 
mentioned,  in  the  direction  which  our  form  of  discipline  gives  about 
the  administration  of  baptism  in  private  houses.  Besides,  I  suppose 
we  cannot  deny,  that  such  private  baptism  has  obtained  in  our  com- 
munion : — As  little  can  we  say,  that  it  has  ever  been  considered 
amongst  us  as  a  ground  of  church  censure.  The  Seceders  hold  the 
prohibition  of  private  baptism  to  be  a  part  of  that  reformation  which 
was  attained  by  the  Church  of  Scotland,  and  sworn  to  in  solemn  cov- 
enants. It  was  included  in  the  condemnation  of  what  were  called  the 
five  articles  of  Perth.  That  faithful  Assembly,  which  was  held  at 
Glasgow,  in  the  year  1638,  in  an  act  concerning  these  articles,  tells 
us,  that  an  Assembly,  fifty-seven  years  before,  had  ordained,  that  the 
sacraments  should  not  be  administered  in  private  houses ;  that  a  min- 
ister of  Trament  was  suspended  at  that  time,  for  baptizing  an  in- 
fant in  a  private  house  ;  but  that,  confessing  his  offence,  he  was  or- 
dained to  make  his  public  confession  in  Trament.  They  mention 
another  minister,  who  had  become  an  object  of  censure  for  baptizing 
privately. 

Alex.  Some  divines  have  defended  the  practice  of  private  bap- 
tism. 

RuF.  It  may  be  so.  But  the  Church  of  Scotland  seems  to  have 
had  good  reasons  for  condemning  it ;  such  as,  that  it  is  contrary  to 
the  nature  and  design  of  the  sacraments,  as  being  public  ordinances  ; 
a  person's  partaking  of  which,  is  a  solemn  and  public  profession  of  his 


464  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

union  and  communion  with  the  whole  church  of  Christ ;  that  it  sepa- 
rates preaching  from  baptizing,  which  two  things  are  joined  together 
in  our  Lord's  solemn  charge  to  his  ministers,  Matth.  xxviii.  19  ;  that 
it  deprives  the  parent  and  his  child  of  the  particular  prayers  of  the 
congregation  on  their  behalf ;  that  it  opens  a  door  to  a  clandestine 
and  irregular  admission  of  persons  to  the  communion  of  the  church ; 
and  fosters  the  popish  notion  of  the  absolute  necessity  of  baptism  to 
the  salvation  of  infants. 

Alex.  I  think,  the  Seceders  would  have  censured  the  apostles, 
who  never  scrupled  to  baptize  any  person,  as  soon  as  they  found,  that 
he  believed  in  Jesus. 

RuF.  They  did  so,  where  there  was  no  constituted  church.  But 
we  have  reason  to  believe,  that  they  would  have  censured  the  irregu- 
lar and  clandestine  dispensation  of  baptism  in  constituted  churches. 
They  enjoined  all  things  to  be  done  decently  and  in  order,  1  Corinth, 
xiv.  40.  Paul  rejoiced,  when  he  saw  the  order  of  a  constituted 
church,  Colos.  ii.  5. 

§  80.  Alex.  Our  time  does  not  now  admit  a  longer  discussion  of 
this  subject.  Let  us  proceed  to  the  fifth  thing,  which  they  sometimes 
mention  as  a  ground  of  complaint,  which  is  the  xxi.  chapter  of  our 
form  of  government  concerning  vacant  congregations  assembling  for 
public  worship — directing  every  vacant  congregation  to  meet  togeth- 
er on  the  Lord's  day,  at  one  or  more  places,  for  the  purpose  of  pray- 
er, singing  praises,  and  reading  the  holy  scriptures  ;  together  with  the 
works  of  such  approved  divines,  as  the  presbytery,  within  whose 
bounds  they  are,  may  recommend  ;  and  that  elders  or  deacons  be  the 
persons  that  shall  preside,  and  select  the  portions  of  scripture,  and  of 
other  books  to  be  read  ;  and  to  see  that  the  whole  be  conducted  in  an 
orderly  manner. 

RuF.  Candor  obliges  us  to  attend  carefully  to  the  sense  in  which 
they  disapprove  this  part  of  our  form  of  government.  They  inculcate 
private  and  domestic  praying,  praising,  reading  the  word,  spiritual 
conference,  and  exhorting  one  another,  as  the  common  duty  of  chris- 
tians. Such  private  teaching,  say  they,  is  held  forth  in  many  texts  ; 
as  in  Colos  iii.  16,  "  Let  the  word  of  Christ  dwell  in  you  richly,  teach- 
ing and  admonishing  one  another"  :  1  Thess.  v.  11,  "  Comfort  your- 
selves together,  and  edify  one  another,  even  as  also  ye  do :"  Heb.  iii. 
13,  ''  Exhort  one  another  daily  :"  Mai  iii  16,  ''  Then  they  that  fear- 
ed the  Lord,  spake  often  one  to  another,  and  the  Lord  hearkened  and 
heard  :"  Zech.  viii.  21,  The  inhabitants  of  one  city  shall  go  to  another, ' 
saying,  Let  us  go  speedily  to  pray  before  the  Lord,  and  to  seek  the 
Lord  of  hosts :  I  will  go  also. "  From  these  and  other  texts  they 
teach,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  christians  to  meet  together  in  private  soci- 
eties for  prayer  and  spiritual  conference.  But  they  reckon  that,  in  a 
constituted  state  of  the  church,  the  ordinary  public  worship  of  a  con- 
gregation ought  to  be  under  the  administration  of  one,  or  more,  inves- 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  465 

ted  with  the  office  of  the  pastor  or  teacher.  It  is  certain,  that  no  oth- 
er public  worship  is  acknowledged  by  the  Westminster  Assembly.  Ac- 
cording to  their  directory,  the  minister  is  both  the  mouth  of  God  to  a 
worshiping  congregation,  in  teaching,  convincing,  reproving,  exhort- 
ing and  comforting ;  and  also,  the  mouth  of  the  congregation  to  God 
in  public  prayer.  In  the  Larger  Catechism,  they  say,  "  All  "  are  not 
permitted  to  read  the  word  publicly  to  the  congregation  ;"  meaning, 
that  they  only  ought  to  read  it  publicly,  whose  office  it  is  both  to  read 
the  word  of  God,  and  to  explain  it  to  the  edification  of  others,  Nehem. 
viii.  8.  It  is  certain,  that  public  worship  under  the  administration  of 
such,  as  are  not  called  by  their  office  to  dispense  the  word  of  God 
publicly,  is  a  novelty  in  the  Presbyterian  church.  Such  public  wor- 
ship obtained,  indeed,  among  some  Independents,  who  contended,  that 
any  church  members,  who  have  gifts,  may  preach  the  word  publicly 
and  ordinarily ;  falsely  supposing,  that  Christ's  sending  them  to  preach, 
consists  in  his  giving  them  gifts  for  that  work  ;  though  the  scripture 
distinguishes  between  God's  giving  persons  gifts  and  his  giving  them 
authority  to  exercise  these  gifts  in  the  public  preaching  of  the  word. 
Christ  gave  gifts  to  his  apostles  by  breathing  on  them,  and  causing 
them  to  receive  the  Holy  Spirit ;  but  he  gave  them  authority,  or  sent 
them,by  saying  to  them/'Go  and  baptise  all  na,tions.'^  Gifts  are  supposed 
as  prerequisites  to  sending ;  but  are  still  to  be  considered  as  distinct 
from  it.  I  have  read  a  saying  of  Luther,  on  this  subject,  which  I 
think  is  solid  :  '^  God  giveth  talents,  saith  he,  to  those  who  are  called 
of  him  :  therefore,  gifted  men  should  attend  to  and  accept  the  calling 
of  God.  It  may  be,  the  perverseness  of  the  church  denies  a  cal- 
ling to  one  who  is  gifted.  Then,  I  say,  let  him  use  his  talent  in  pri- 
vate.    God  reapeth  not,  where  he  doth  not  sow." 

Alex.  The  Seceders  carry  this  matter  too  far.  Persons,  that  are 
not  called  to  the  ministerial  office,  may  embrace  opportunities  of 
teaching  and  exhorting  publicly  ;  otherwise,  the  woman  of  Samaria 
was  wrong,  in  communicating  her  discovery  of  Christ  to  her  fellow- 
citizens  :  and  Mr.  James  Durham,  when  an  officer  in  the  Scotch 
army,  was  blameable  for  praying  with  the  men  under  his  command, 
and  for  giving  them  many  serious  exhortations  concerning  the  case 
of  their  souls :  and  also  the  martyrs,  who  solemnly  declared,  to  at- 
tending multitudes,  the  testimony  which  they  held,  and  which  they 
were  going  to  seal  with  their  blood.  Besides,  when  the  people  of 
a  congregation  meet  to  deliberate  about  their  public  affairs,  I  should 
think  it  very  proper  for  the  president  of  the  meeting  to  begin  with 
prayer. 

Rup.  But  I  cannot  see,  how  any  one  of  these  cases  is  an  example 
of  the  practice  in  question.  The  woman  of  Samaria  was  not  taking 
upon  her  to  preside  in  the  ordinary  solemn  worship  of  a  constituted 
church  or  congregation,  when  she  informed  her  fellow-citizens  of  her 
interview  with  Christ.  In  a  constituted  church,  the  apostle  declares, 
30 


466  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

that  a  woman  is  not  permitted  to  speak  publicly.  Mr.  Durham  was 
only  performmg  a  duty  of  christian  charity  towards  the  men  under 
his  command,  which  his  station  gave  him  an  opportunity  of  perform- 
ing. So  the  president  of  a  meeting,  for  deliberating  about  tem- 
poral affairs,  ought  to  act  as  the  mouth  of  the  Assembly,  seeking  the 
direction  and  blessing  of  God ;  whom  we  are  bound  to  acknowledge 
in  all  our  ways.  This  is  more  necessary  and  becoming,  if  the  af- 
fairs under  deliberation  affect  the  welfare  of  a  worshiping  congrega- 
tion. With  regard  to  a  martyr,  he  is  in  the  providence  of  God  called 
upon,  as  a  witness,  to  bear  a  solemn  testimony  to  the  truth.  It  is 
evident,  that  not  one  of  these  things  belong  peculiarly  to  the  regu- 
lar exercise  of  the  ministerial  ofi&ce ;  as  is  the  case  with  that  of  lead- 
ing or  directing  the  ordinary  public  worship  on  the  Lord's  day,  in  a 
constituted  state  of  the  church.  In  all  the  instances  now  adduced, 
the  persons  do  nothing  but  what  belongs  to  their  respective  sta- 
tions. But,  in  an  Assembly  for  public  worship,  no  man,  but  a  sent 
and  called  minister,  can  properly  say,  that  it  belongs  to  his  station  to 
read  the  word  of  God,  to  pray  and  exhort  publicly.  Has  any  one 
of  them,  who  is  not  a  minister,  a  sufficient  ground  to  say  to  the  rest, 
I  have  a  call  from  God,  which  none  of  you  have,  to  officiate  in  public 
worship  ? 

Alex.  The  elders  and  deacons  have  the  call  of  the  people,  who 
have  chosen  them. 

RuF.  But  the  public  reading  of  the  word  and  public  prayer  in  the 
assemblies  for  public  worship  on  the  Lord's  day,  do  not  belong  to  the 
office,  to  which  the  people  have  chosen  them.  It  is  evident,  that  the 
Westminster  Assembly,  in  their  form  of  church  government,  which 
they  have  drawn  from  the  sacred  scriptures,  did  not  allow  elders  or 
deacons  to  do  what,  in  that  form  of  sound  words,  is  assigned  pecu- 
liarly to  the  office  of  the  pastor. 

§  81.  Alex.  We  should  now  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the 
other  evils  you  mention,  viz.,  the  form  of  swearing  by  kissing  a 
book,  public  lotteries,  and  the  Mason  oath.  But  as  we  have  con- 
versed on  these  subjects  before,  we  need  not  resume  the  consideration 
of  them. 

Rup.  These  three  evils  prevail  as  much  in  this  country,  as  in  Great 
Britain;  and  therefore  a  testimony  against  them  here  is  equally 
necessary. 

Fow,  sir,  we  have  taken  a  survey  of  the  several  grounds  of  com- 
plaint, which  the  Seceders  exhibit  as  grievances,  which  they  entreat  us 
to  redress.  I  do  not  find,  that  on  any  of  these  particulars  they  are 
chargeable  with  falsehood,  or  even  with  any  exaggeration.  There 
are  other  public  matters  which  they  sometimes  complain  of  and  desire 
to  have  amended ;  such  as,  reading  sermons  instead  of  preaching 
them,  the  admission  of  many  to  sealing  ordinances,  who  are  known 
neglecters  of  the  worship  of  God  m  their  families,  the  neglect  of  the 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  467 

publication  of  the  purpose  of  marriage  a  competent  time  before  the 
celebration  of  it. 

Alex.  I  would  ask,  whether  these  things  are  not  disapproved 
either  expressly  or  implicitly  in  the  Confession  and  Catechisms  which 
we  have  adopted :  why  then  do  the  Seceders  charge  us  with  these 
things  ? 

RuF.  What  you  say  of  the  Westminster  Confession  and  Catechisms 
is  most  readily  granted  ;  but  they  reckon,  that  our  general  profession 
of  adherence  to  these  forms  of  sound  words  is  as  far  from  proving 
satisfactorily,  that  we  renounce  the  tenets  or  practices  which  the  Se- 
ceders testify  against,  as  a  similar  profession  made  formerly  by 
Messrs.  Simson  and  Campbell,  and  more  lately  by  Dr.  M'Gill  was 
from  proving  that  they  renounced  the  errors  with  which  they  were 
charged.  How  can  we  expect  that  such  an  apology  will  satisfy  the 
Seceders  ;  whilst  the  tenets  and  practices,  which  they  consider  as  er- 
rors and  corruptions,  however  habitually  and  publicly  persisted  in, 
pass  without  censure  ?  You  would  surely  reckon  it  very  absurd  for 
a  person  to  offer  to  vindicate  himself  from  any  charge  brought  against 
him,  by  alleging  that  the  Bible,  which  he  had  adopted  as  the  rule  of 
his  faith  and  practice,  condemned  either  expressly  or  implicitly  the 
misdemeanor  with  which  he  was  charged.  If  our  judicatures  disap- 
prove the  form  of  swearing  by  kissing  a  book,  public  as  well  as  pri- 
vate lotteries,  swearing  the  Mason  oath,  attending  the  public  admin- 
istrations of  Methodists  and  other  teachers  of  error,  admitting  the 
neglecters  of  family  worship  to  sealing  ordinances,  why  do  they  not 
declare  that  these  offences,  complained  of  by  Seceders,  are  sinful ; 
and  that  such  as  persist  in  the  practice  of  them  any  longer,  shall  incur 
the  censures  of  the  church '?  Why  does  not  the  Presbyterian  church 
in  the  United  States  of  America  exhibit  an  explicit,  publie  testimony 
against  such  evils  ? 

Alex.  She  has  not,  as  yet,  deemed  it  proper  to  do  so  :  but  if  the 
time  comes,  that  she  thinks  it  necessary,  I  hope  she  will  testify  against 
the  evils  and  errors  of  the  day. 

KuF.  Your  way  of  speaking  puts  me  in  mind  of  those  Jews  who, 
when  the  prophet  Haggai  was  encouraging  them  to  rebuild  the  tem- 
ple, said,  '^  The  time  is  not  come,  the  time  that  the  Lord's  house 
should  be  built."  And  why  is  it  not  time  to  exhibit  an  explicit,  pub- 
lic testimony  against  the  evils  and  errors  of  the  day  ?  God's  name  is 
dishonored  by  these  evils  and  errors:  And  will  not  zeal  for  his  de- 
clarative glory  urge  us  to  testify  against  them  without  delay  ?  Souls 
are  in  danger  of  being  ensnared  and  ruined  :  and  will  faithful  watch- 
men neglect  at  such  a  time  to  give  them  seasonable  warning  ?  In 
these  evils  and  errors,  the  enemy  comes  in,  like  a  flood :  and  shall 
not  ministers  and  people,  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  lift 
up  a  standard  against  him  ?  Are  not  ministers,  especially,  neglect- 
ing a  most  important  duty  of  their  office,  when  they  do  not  join  to- 


468  ALEXANDER  AND  EUFUS. 

gether  in  judicially  asserting  and  declaring  the  truths  of  God  in  a  di- 
rect and  pointed  opposition  to  the  errors  that  prevail  ? 

§  82.  Alex.  In  the  pamphlet  to  which  we  have  so  often  referred, 
the  authors  insult  the  understanding  of  mankind  by  an  eccentric 
harangue  about  the  peculiar  ardor  with  which  all  sorts  of  persons  at 
the  reformation  from  Popery,  embraced  the  testimony  of  the  Walden- 
ses,  Lollards,  Wickliffites  and  Bohemians  ;  when  at  the  same  time, 
that  testimony  is  so  far  from  pleasing  the  Seceders,  that  if  these  men 
were  to  arise  from  the  grave,  and  hold  the  same  sentiments,  which 
they  held  before  their  death,  these  gentlemen  would  not  so  far  ac- 
knowledge them  as  christians,  as  to  hold  stated  or  occasional  commu- 
nion with  them,  or  hear  a  sermon  from  one  of  their  ministers.  The 
reformers  did  not  condemn  the  Church  of  Rome,  because  she  did  not 
testify  judicially  against  free  masonry  and  lotteries. 

RuF.  The  passage  you  alluded  to  in  the  pamphlet  entitled  Uvils 
of  the  Work,  simply  asserts  (without  affecting  to  harangue)  that  they 
who  embraced  the  reformation  preached  by  Luther,  Zuinglius,  Calvin 
and  others  were  engaged  in  the  same  cause  which  had  been  main- 
tained before  by  the  Waldenses,  Albigenses,  Wickliffites,  Hussites 
and  others.  If  this  assertion  insults  the  human  understanding,  it  has 
been  insulted  by  the  most  judicious  writers,  concerning  the  reforma- 
tion. Turretine*  on  this  question,  Where  the  protestant  religion  was 
before  Luther  and  Zuinglius  ?  observes  that  before  these  reformers, 
there  were,  according  to  Thuanus,  Eneas  Sylvius,  and  other  histo- 
rians, some  who  professed  the  same  faith,  and  testified  against  the 
same  errors  of  Popery,  such  as,  the  Waldenses,  the  Wickliffites,  the 
Lollards.  Mezeray  in  his  abridgement  of  chronology,  says  of  the 
Waldenses,  that  they  had  almost  the  same  opinions  which  are  held  by 
those  now  called  Calvinists.  And  how  can  we  deny  (what  is  the 
purport  of  the  passage  which  you  censure)  that  the  revival  of  God's 
work  in  his  church  reconciles  the  minds  of  men  to  those  truths  and 
ordinances  of  Christ,  against  which  they  had  before  been  strongly 
prejudiced,  and  to  which  for  some  time  before  a  few  only  had  pro- 
fessed adherence. 

With  regard  to  your  remark,  that  the  Seceders  would  not  hold 
communion  with  the  witnesses  of  Christ  in  former  times,  if  they  were 
now  living  and  holding  the  same  sentiments  which  they  held  before 
their  death, — I  observe,  that  it  is  much  the  same  with  the  objection, 
which  was  commonly  in  the  mouths  of  the  Papists  in  the  period  of 
the  reformation ;  namely,  that  the  fathers  of  the  primitive  church,  had 
they  been  then  alive,  would  have  had  no  communion  with  our  refor- 
mers. It  is  true,  the  profession  made  by  the  church,  since  the  canon 
of  scripture  was  closed,  ought  to  have  been,  in  substance,  one  and  the 
same.    But  there  are  two  things  which  occasion  variations  in  the 

*  Loc.  18.  quest,  x.  vol.  iii.  page  61 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  469 

form  of  the  church's  profession,  or  of  the  manner  in  which  it  is  stated 
in  different  periods  or  places  of  the  world.  One  is,  that  several  arti- 
cles of  Divine  truth  are  better  understood  and  more  clearly  and  dis- 
tinctly stated  in  the  church's  profession  in  one  period  or  place  of  the 
world,  than  in  another ;  in  this  respect  churches  as  well  as  individuals 
are  capable  of  improvement.  To  be  convinced  of  this  truth,  we  need 
only  compare  the  state  of  the  church  before  the  coming  of  Christ,  with 
the  state  of  it  after  that  event ;  and  its  state  before  the  reformation 
from  Popery  with  its  attainments  afterwards ;  or  the  confession  of 
the  Greek  Church  with  the  confessions  of  the  reformed  churches.  The 
other  thing  that  occasions  a  diversity  in  the  statement  of  the  church's 
profession,  is,  the  diversity  of  the  errors  and  corruptions  which  the 
church  has  to  struggle  with  in  different  ages  and  places  of  the  world. 
But  notwithstanding  such  variety  of  attainments,  so  far  as  the  church 
of  Christ,  in  different  times  and  places,  is  adhering  to  his  truth,  and 
opposing  error,  she  is  engaged  in  the  same  cause.  Hence,  the  testi- 
mony of  Wickliffe  and  the  testimony  of  the  Seceders  may  both  be 
considered  as  the  word  of  Christ's  patience,  and  as  faithful  testimo- 
nies against  the  errors  and  corruptions  of  their  respective  times  :  nor 
can  it  be  any  sufficient  objection  to  this  harmony  between  him  and 
them,  that  there  are  various  articles  of  truth  and  various  evils  speci- 
fied in  their  testimony,  which  are  not  specified  in  his  ;  and  on  the 
contrary,  many  in  his  testimony  which  are  not  in  theirs.  ;  For  this  di- 
versity is  no  more  than  what  necessarily  arises  from  the  progressive 
attainments  of  the  church,  and  from  the  various  ways  in  which  the 
truth  is  opposed  in  different  periods.  The  same  faithfulness,  which 
induced  Wickliffe  to  oppose  the  corruptions  and  superstitions  of  his 
time,  would  have  led  him,  had  he  lived  in  our  day,  to  testify  against 
the  Mason  oath  and  public  lotteries. 

§  83.  Alex.  You,  then,  consider  the  testimony  of  those  you  call 
witnesses  of  Christ  as  the  same  in  different  periods  of  time.  It  seems, 
that  a  similar  opinion  about  the  oneness  of  the  church  of  Christ  and 
the  identity  of  the  profession  which  she  ought  to  make  in  the  most 
distant  parts  of  the  world,  are  the  ground  of  the  subordination  which 
the  Seceders  acknowledge  to  their  General  Synod  in  Scotland.  The 
admitting,  however,  of  references  and  appeals  in  matters  of  faith  to 
that  Synod,  in  which  the  secession  body  here  have  no  representatives, 
seems  inconsistent  with  Presbyterian  principles.  It  was  a  sprightly 
remark  that  was  lately  made  upon  these  seceding  clergymen  in  a  ser- 
mon preached  at  the  opening  of  the  Synod  of  Pittsburg.  "  They  fre- 
quently find  thdr  lamp  so  dim,"  said  the  preacher,  "  that  they  can- 
not see  to  manage  the  business  that  occurs  in  their  own  little  sphere, 
until  they  send  to  Edinburgh  for  oil." 

Rup.  I  apprehend,  that  there  is  nothing  more  in  the  connection 
between  the  Associate  Synod  in  Scotland  (as  it  is  stated  in  their  act 
concerning  it)  than  what  belongs  to  the  scriptural  unity  of  the  church 


470  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

of  Christ.  For  however  many  particular  visible  churches  of  Christ 
there  may  be,  such  as  the  churches  of  Judea,  Galatia,  Ephesus,  Cor- 
inth, they  are  all  considered  in  scripture  as  constituting  one  general 
visible  church  of  Christ.  The  word  ecclesia,  or  church,  is  often  taken  in 
such  a  large  sense  as  to  signify,  not  any  single  particular  church  ;  but 
one  general  visible  church  :  God  hath  set  some  in  the  church,  first 
apostles,  secondarily  prophets,  thirdly  teachers,  after  that  miracles, 
then  gifts  of  healings,  helps,  governments,  diversities  of  tongues. 
These  things  I  write — that  thou  mayest  know,  how  thou  oughtest  to 
behave  thyself  in  the  house  of  God,  which  is  the  church  of  the  living 
God,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth,  1  Cor.  xii.  28  ;  1  Tim.  iii.  15. 
In  these  passages  the  church  of  Christ,  is  spoken  of  as  the  general  visible 
church,  to  which  the  oracles,  the  ministry,  and  the  ordiuances,  including 
church  government,  are  given.  Since,  then,  there  is  but  one  general  vis- 
ible church,  having  a  government  set  in  it  of  Divine  right ;  and  since 
that  government,  which  belongs  primarily  to  the  whole  church  or  body 
of  Christ,  belongs  secondarily  to  all  the  parts  of  it,  it  may  be  justly  con- 
cluded, that  the  more  extensively  church  government  is  managed  in 
greater  and  more  general  assemblies,  the  more  fully  is  the  edification 
of  the  whole  body  of  Christ,  which,  next  to  his  glory,  is  the  great 
end  of  church  government,  attained ;  and  that,  on  the  contrary,  the 
less  extensively  this  government  is  exercised,  as  only  in  presbyteries, 
or  congregational  elderships,  the  more  imperfect  it  is  ;  and  the  less 
it  is  calculated  to  answer  the  general  end  now  mentioned.  Hence  it 
is  manifestly  agreeable  to  the  constitution  of  the  church  of  Christ, 
that  the  several  particular  chuiches  should  be  united,  as  far  as  can 
be  attained,  under  one  general  government.  The  more  nearly  that 
we  approach  to  this  plan,  we  approach  the  more  nearly  to  the  form 
of  ■  government  delivered  to  the  church  by  Christ  and  his  apostles. 
According  to  these  scriptural  principles,  two  particular  churches, 
however  great  their  local  distance  from  one  another,  while  they  make, 
as  they  ought  to  do,  the  same  profession  of  the  faith,  should  consider 
themselves  as  one  professing  body,  one  church  ;  and  for  preserving 
this  unity,  they  ought  to  submit  any  controversies,  that  may  arise 
concerning  matters  of  faith,  to  a  judicature,  representing  the  whole 
as  fully,  as  their  local  situation  admits.  The  General  Associate  Synod 
may  be  considered  as  such  a  judicature  with  regard  to  the  Associate 
body  in  Britain,  Ireland  and  America.  It  may  be  further  observed, 
that,  though  every  part  of  an  ecclesiastical  body,  which  is  subordi- 
nate to  a  representative  judicature,  ought  ordinarily  to  send  members 
to  it ;  yet  it  does  not  follow,  that  every  remote  part  of  the  body,  from 
which  it  is  found  impracticable  to  send  members,  ceases  to  be  repre- 
sented by,  or  subordinate  to,  such  a  judicature.  It  does  not  appear, 
that  the  churches  to  which  the  apostles  delivered  the  decrees  of  the 
Synod  at  Jerusalem  (which  we  have  an  account  of  in  the  fifteenth 
chapter  of  the  Acts)  were  only  such  as  had  sent  members  to  that 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  471 

Synod.  We  may  not  expect  to  find  a  synod  or  council  in  which  all 
parts  of  the  catholic  visible  church  will  have  members  sent  by  them 
as  representatives ;  but  if  there  shall  be  in  it  members  sent  from  such 
a  variety  of  particular  churches  as  may  fairly  represent  the  majority 
of  that  part  of  the  catholic  visible  church,  whose  scriptural  profession 
warrants  our  sacramental  communion  with  it,  submission  may  be  due 
to  its  decisions  in  the  Lord,  even  from  a  particular  church  which,  on 
account  of  its  local  distance,  has  not  had  an  opportunity  of  sending 
any  member  to  it  as  a  representative.  For,  according  to  the  suppo- 
sition, that  particular  church  is  a  minor  part  of  the  professing  body, 
the  majority  of  which  is  sufficiently  represented  in  that  synod  or 
council.  That  such  a  subordination  was  acknowledged  by  the  an- 
cient churches  appears  from  the  frequent  appeals  of  their  bishops  and 
others  to  councils,  and  from  the  regard  which  was  paid  to  the  deter- 
minations of  councils  as  ecclesiastical  rules  of  general  obligation.  In 
Old  Testament  prophecy  it  was  foretold  as  one  of  the  privileges  of 
the  New  Testament  church,  that  there  should  be  an  high  way  out  of 
one  nation  into  another  ;  that  the  Assyrian  should  come  into  Egypt, 
and  the  Egyptian  into  Assyria  ;  and  that  the  Egyptians  should  serve 
with  the  Assyrians  j  to  intimate,  that  there  should  be  such  a  spiritual 
intercourse  among  particular  churches  in  different  nations,  as  would 
serve  to  manifest  their  unity,  to  strengthen  one  another,  and  to  ad- 
vance the  interest  of  Christ's  kingdom  in  general.  These  ends  will 
be  eminently  promoted,  when  the  ministers  and  elders  of  various  par- 
ticular churches,  residing  in  different  countries,  shall  meet  in  synods 
and  councils,  in  order  to  ascertain  and  exhibit  the  only  true  doctrine, 
worship  and  government  of  the  church  of  Christ,  according  to  his 
word  ;  or,  when,  however  locally  distant  from  one  another,  they  shall 
acknowledge  themselves  to  be  one  professing  body ;  of  which  the 
several  parts  are  subordinate  to  the  whole.  Nor  does  the  subordina- 
tion of  such  distant  particular  churches  to  a  court  representing  the 
majority  of  the  whole,  which  may  be  called  a  General  Synod  or  coun- 
cil, lessen  the  authority  of  those  churches,  or  abridge  their  liberty  in 
judging  cases  that  belong  peculiarly  to  their  respective  jurisdiction. 
For  it  is  not  supposed,  that  such  a  General  Synod  can  meddle  in  any 
case,  the  cognizance  of  which  properly  belongs  to  the  courts  of  any 
particular  church,  unless  it  be  brought  before  that  Synod  by  reference 
or  appeal ;  that  is,  unless  the  courts  of  the  particular  church  have 
judged  the  examination  of  the  case  by  the  General  Synod  would  be 
beneficial.  If  the  case  brought  from  a  particular  church  respect  a 
point  of  doctrine,  after  a  precise  statement  of  it,  (which  may  be  made 
in  writing  as  well  as  by  word  of  mouth,)  the  General  Synod  has  no 
further  need  of  any  members  of  that  church  in  order  to  a  discussion 
of  the  question,  which  is  then  simply  this ;  what  is  the  determination 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the  scriptures  concerning  such  a  point  ? 
In  the  same  way,  a  General  Synod  might  endeavor  to  remove  differ- 


472  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

ences  about  terms  of  communion,  and  about  appearances  of  defection 
from  the  cause  of  Clirist  j  the  removal  of  such  differences  being  man- 
ifestly necessary  to  the  peace  and  edification  of  his  church.  With  re- 
gard to  priyate  or  personal  cases,  the  courts  of  a  particular  church 
will  scarcely  ever  find  it  expedient  to  make  a  reference  or  to  admit  an 
appeal  to  a  court  at  so  great  a  distance  as  that  between  Europe  and 
America ;  because  in  such  cases,  there  may  be  necessary  evidence, 
which  it  would  be  impracticable  to  carry  thither.  Such  are  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  connection  between  the  Associate  body  in  this  country 
and  their  brethren  of  the  General  Associate  Synod  in  Scotland. 
There  seems  to  be  no  dependence  in  this  connection,  but  what  is  ne- 
cessarily implied  in  the  subordination  of  Presbyterian  church  courts. 
The  preacher,  in  delivering  the  passage  you  alluded  to,  seemed  to 
have  forgotten  the  dignity  of  the  pulpit. 

'Tis  pitiful 
To  break  a  jest,  when  pity  would  inspire 
Pathetic  exhortation, 
And  serious  dealing  in  a  serious  cause. 

It  is  true,  the  ministers  of  the  Associate  body  sometimes  endeavor, 
in  their  public  ministrations,  to  show  the  evil  of  occasional  commun- 
ion with  erroneous  teachers  ;  the  evil  of  substituting  hymns  of  human 
composure  in  solemn  and  public  worship,  instead  of  the  psalms  and 
songs  which  God  appointed  to  be  used  in  that  worship  ;  and  similar 
usages,  which  are  condemned  in  their  declaration  and  testimony. 
But  I  never  heard,  that,  on  such  occasions,  they  deal  in  ridicule  or 
satire.  They  always  speak  of  such  things  seriously  ;  and  point  out 
some  doctrine  or  command  of  God's  word,  to  which  the  particulars 
they  disapprove,  are  contrary,  and  lament  men's  obstinate  attachment 
to  them,  as  tending  to  bring  God's  tremendous  judgments  upon  the 
church  and  land. 

^  §  84.  Alex.  I  have  heard,  that  this  subordination  is  the  principal 
difference  between  the  Seceders  and  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod. 
Though  our  time  will  not  allow  our  conversation  to  be  continued 
much  longer,  I  wish  to  hear,  before  we  part,  some  account  of  that 
Synod. 

^  Rup.  Men's  changing  their  public  profession  of  religion,  may  be 
either  good  or  evil,  either  matter  of  praise  or  blame,  according  to  the 
quality  of  what  they  renounce,  and  of  what  they  embrace.  But  when 
a  number  of  ministers  and  people  have  determined  to  take  this  step, 
there  are  two  things,  which  honesty  would  require  them  to  do  :  first, 
they  should  openly  avow  their  renunciation  of  one  profession,  and 
their  adherence  to  another ;  and  secondly,  they  should  declare  the 
reasons  which  have  determined  them  to  make  the  change.  If  the 
ministers  who  joined  in  the  union,  which  gave  birth  to  the  Associate 
Reformed  Synod,  had  been  explicit  in  these  two  respects,  it  would 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  473 

not  have  been  disputed  among  the  people,  as  it  was  for  several  years 
after  the  union,  whether  they  had  actually  changed  their  public  pro- 
fession, or  not.  It  was  then  not  uncommon  to  hear  persons  that 
had  belonged  to  either  of  the  two  parties,  which  compose  the  As- 
sociate Reformed  body,  affirming,  that  they  had  made  no  change. 
The  difference,  however,  between  the  public  profession  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Synod,  and  that  which  some  of  them  made,  while 
they  were  connected  with  the  associate  courts,  was  too  manifest  to  be 
denied. 

In  the  first  place,  this  difference  is  evident  from  the  articles  agreed 
to  in  making  the  union.  There  was  a  copy  of  propositions  which  had 
been  agreed  to  by  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  at  Phil- 
adelphia, in  April,  1781,  as  the  basis  of  a  union  with  the  Reformed 
Presbytery.  These  articles  were  rejected  by  that  presbytery.  ^  That 
they  were,  however,  a  much  fairer  representation  of  the  public  pro- 
fession made  by  the  Secession  body,  than  the  articles  w^hich  were 
carried  in  the  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  in  June,  1782,  was  not, 
and  could  not  be  denied  :  and  therefore  the  members  who  receded 
from  the  former,  and  acquiesced  in  the  latter,  which  were  far  more 
general  and  indeterminate,  declined,  in  so  doing,  from  their  former 
profession. 

For  example,  the  first  of  the  articles  carried  in  1782,  in  these 
words :  ''  Election,  redemption,  and  the  application  thereof,  are  of 
equal  extent,  and  for  the  elect  only  ;"  is  far  from  being  so  explicit 
as  the  proposition  which  was  agreed  to  in,  1781,  which  I  shall 
read.  "  There  is  but  one  special  redemption  by  the  death  of  Christ 
for  all  the  objects  thereof;  as  he  died  in  one  and  the  same  sense, 
for  all  those,  for  whom  in  any  respect  he  died.  Christ  and  the  ben- 
efits of  his  purchase  cannot  be  divided  one  from  another  ;  and  we 
are  only  partakers  of  the  benefits  which  Christ  purchased  by  faith ; 
and  whatsoever  benefits  are  received,  otherwise  than  by  faith,  are 
not  to  be  reckoned  among  the  benefits  that  Christ  has  purchased."* 

The  6th  article,  which  was  carried  in  1782,  was  expressed  in  these 
words  :  "  Though  no  real  or  practical  subordination  to  the  Associate 
Synod  of  Edinburgh,  in  a  consistency  with  Presbyterian  principles, 
can  be  plead  ;  yet,  from  the  most  wise  and  important  considerations, 
the  former  connections,  whatever  they  have  been,  shall  remain  as  be- 
fore, notwithstanding  this  coalescence."  This  article  seems  to  be 
self-contradictory  ;  while  it  asserts,  that  a  real  subordination  cannot 

*  This  last  sentence  is  taken  from  tlie  6tli  article  of  the  Synod's  Act  concerning 
the  benefits  of  redemption,  and  ought  to  have  been  correctly  transcribed  thus  : 
"  We  are  partakers  of  the  redemption  purchased  by  Christ,  or  of  the  benefits  pro- 
cured by  his  death,  only  through  the  application  thereof  to  us  by  his  Holy  Spirit 
worketh  faith  in  us  and  thereby  uniting  us  to  Christ  in  our  effectual  caUing— and 
whatever  things  are  actively  received  or  used  otherwise  than  by  faith  in  a  state  of 
union  with  Christ,  are  not  to  be  reckoned  among  the  benefits  purchased  by  his 
death." 


474  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

bo  pleaded  for  on  Presbyterian  principles  ;  and  yet,  that  the  connec- 
tion of  the  Presbytery  with  the  Synod,  which  had  been  a  real  subor- 
dination, should  remain,  for  the  most  wise  and  important  considera- 
tions. For  the  presbytery,  from  the  time  of  its  erection,  had  always 
owned  a  real  subordination  to  the  Associate  Synod,  as  consistent 
with  Presbyterian  principles.  The  belief  of  this  was  undoubtedly 
professed  by  the  presbytery  the  year  before,  when  they  said,  '^  Our 
connection  with  Associate  Synod,  we  are  determined  to  maintain 
agreeably  to  our  ordination  vows."  Only  about  two  years  before, 
it  was  considered  by  the  presbytery  as  one  reason  for  refusing  a  pro- 
test, offered  by  one  of  their  members,  Mr.  Roger,  against  their  de- 
termination concerning  some  points  of  doctrine,  that  his  protest 
contained  no  appeal  to  the  Associate  Synod.  In  1771,  the  same 
presbytery  owned,  that,  in  making  a  union  with  the  burgher  breth- 
ren, they  had  taken  steps  inconsistent  with  their  subordination  to 
the  Synod;  to  which,  said  they,  we  have  been,  and  are  subordi- 
nate.* 

The  5th  article,  carried  in  1782,  is  in  these  words  :  *' As  no  oppo- 
sition of  sentiment  relative  to  the  important  duty  of  cove  lanting  ap- 
pears on  either  side,  it  is  mutually  agreed,  that  the  consideration  of 
it  be  referred  to  the  councils  and  deliberations  of  the  whole  body." 
In  order  to  form  a  judgment  of  this  article,  it  is  necessary  to  ob- 
serve, that,  with  regard  to  this  truly  important  duty,  the  public  pro- 
fession of  Seceders  had  been  ascertained  with  peculiar  precision  by 
the  Associate  Presbytery,  soon  after  the  secession  took  place ;  par- 
ticularly, in  their  act  for  the  renewing  of  the  covenants  National  and 
Solemn  League,  and  in  the  answers  to  Mr.  Nairn's  reasons  of  dissent. 
But  this  article  represents  the  truth  on  the  head  of  public  covenant- 
ing, as  still  undetermined  ;  and  therefore,  unless  what  the  Associate 
Presbytery  determined  in  these  acts  was  erroneous,  the  members,  who 
assented  to  this  article,  declined  from  an  important  part  of  the  scrip- 
tural profession  of  Seceders. 

The  3d  and  4th  articles,  which,  as  they  relate  to  the  principal  mat- 
ter in  dispute  between  the  two  parties  which  proposed  to  unite, 
ought  to  have  been  expressed  with  great  precision,  run  in  the  follow- 
ing terms  :  "  Whereas  magistracy  proceeds  from  God,  as  the  Creator 
and  Governor  of  the  world,  and  the  profession  of  the  true  religion  is 
not  essential  to  the  being  of  civil  magistrates  ;  and  whereas  protec- 
tion and  allegiance  are  reciprocal ;  and  whereas  the  United  States, 
while  they  protect  us  in  life  and  liberty,  do  not  impose  any  thing  un- 
lawful on  us ;  we  therefore  judge  it  our  duty  to  acknowledge  the 
government  of  these  states  in  all  lawful  commands,  that  we  may  lead 

*  Mr.  Marshal's  Vindication  of  the  Associate  Presbytery,  page  6; 
The  ministers  in  the  communion  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania 
had  acknowledged  this  subordination  at  their  ordination.    Ibid,  page  15. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  475 

quiet  and  peaceable  lives  in  all  godliness  and  honesty.  The  above 
proposition  is  not  to  be  understood  in  an  opposite  sense  to  that  pro- 
position relative  to  civil  government,  in  which  the  Associate  Presby- 
tery of  New- York,  and  the  Reformed  Presbytery  have  agreed  ;  but 
only  as  a  plain  and  undisguised  explication  of  one  point  of  truth, 
in  which  we  have  the  best  reason  to  suppose,  that  the  whole  body  is 
united." 

The  proposition  here  referred  to  concerning  civil  government,  was 
one  of  those  propositions,  which  had  been  agreed  to  in  the  year  1*779, 
by  the  majority  of  a  meeting  at  Pequea,  consisting  of  members  both 
of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  and  of  the  Reformed 
Presbytery,  with  two  members  from  the  Associate  Presbytery  of 
New- York. 

Mr.  Marshal  and  Mr.  Clarkson,  with  three  elders,  had  dissented 
from  this  proposition  in  1779,  "judging  it  to  be  ambiguous,  and  such 
as  consisted  with  the  opinions  of  those  who  hold,  that  scripture  quali- 
fications are  necessary  to  the  being  of  magistracy,  where  they  have 
been  made  so  by  the  people  ;  that  the  kingdom  of  Providence  as  it 
respects  the  natural  ordering  of  things  to  their  natural  ends,  abstract- 
ing from  their  subserviency  to  the  good  of  the  church,  belongs  to 
Christ  as  Mediator  ;  and  that  the  Bible  is  formally  the  rule  of  magis- 
strates  in  the  execution  of  their  office,  in  the  same  sense  in  which  it 
is  the  rule  of  ministers  in  the  administration  of  gospel  ordinances  ; 
Popish  and  Erastian  tenets,  which  have  been  a  source  of  great  dis- 
traction and  ruin  in  the  world."  It  may  therefore  be  observed,  that 
the  proposition  agreed  to  in  1779,  was  a  declining  from  the  princi- 
ples of  the  Associate  body  on  the  head  of  the  civil  magistrate  ;  and 
so  was  this  article,  in  which  that  proposition  was  approved,  in  place 
of  the  proposition  on  that  head,  agreed  to  as  the  basis  of  a  union 
between  the  two  bodies,  the  preceding  year;  the  words  of  which  pro- 
position, I  shall  now  read  : 

"As  long  as  magistrates  in  the  administration  of  government,  do 
not  violate  the  fundamental  articles  of  the  constitution  ;  that  is,  while 
they  protect  the  lives  and  property  of  subjects,  and  do  not  exercise 
tyranny  over  their  consciences,  though  these  officers  of  government  do 
not  profess  the  true  religion,  we  ought  to  be  subject  to  their  lawful 
commands  for  conscience  sake ;  or,  in  other  words,  protection  and 
allegiance  are  reciprocal.  Therefore  all  men,  whether  heathens  or 
christians,  whether  professors  of  the  true  religion,  or  apostates  from 
it,  have  a  natural  right,  to  form  themselves  into  a  body  politic,  and 
to  elect  officers  to  rule  and  govern  them.  The  apostacy  of  Britain 
from  the  covenanted  reformation,  does  not  deprive  them  of  a  right 
to  civil  government ;  and  the  want  of  scriptural  or  covenanted  quali- 
fications in  their  rulers,  does  not  absolve  the  people  of  God  from  an 
obligation  to  be  obedient  to  the  civil  magistrate  in  lawful  commands  ; 
as  the  whole  of  the  magistrate's  power  lies  within  the  compass  of 
natural  principles." 


476  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

In  short,  with  regard  to  the  articles  in  general,  that  were  carried 
in  the  Associate  Presbytery  in  1782,  they  had  either  the  same  mean- 
ing with  the  propositions  which  were  agreed  to  by  that  presbytery 
the  year  before,  or  they  had  a  different  meaning.  If  they  had  a  dif- 
ferent meaning,  then,  an  agreement  to  them  was  a  departure  from  the 
principles  of  the  secession  :  for,  it  could  not  be  denied,  that  the  prin- 
ciples stated  in  the  propositions  agreed  to  in  1781,  were  those  of  the 
secession.  But  if  they  had  the  same  meaning,  the  proposal  of  them 
to  the  members  of  the  Reformed  Presbytery,  as  if  they  were  different 
from  the  propositions  which  they  had  rejected,  (for  they  had  solemnly 
rejected  these  propositions,)  was  dishonest  and  insidious.  It  may 
be  added,  that  if  the  agreement  of  the  members  of  the  Associate  Pres- 
bytery to  the  articles  carried  in  the  presbytery  in  1782,  was  a  decli- 
ning from  the  principles  of  the  secession,  as  it  was  a  receding  from 
their  own  former  proposition  ;  it  was  much  more  so,  as  it  was  a  re- 
ceding from  the  ample  exhibition  of  the  principles  of  the  secession  in 
the  Judicial  Testimony,  in  the  act  concerning  the  doctrine  of  grace, 
in  the  act  for  renewing  the  covenants  National  and  Solemn  League, 
in  the  declaration  concerning  civil  government,  and  in  the  act  against 
a  new  scheme  of  universal  redemption,  to  all  which  these  members 
had  vowed  adherence. 

In  the  second  place,  that  this  union  made  a  change  in  the  public 
profession  of  the  Seceding  ministers,  appears  from  the  change  which 
it  made  in  their  relation  to  the  Associate  Synod,  and  other  religious 
bodies  in  Scotland.  Before  the  union,  they  stood  in  a  pecuHar  rela- 
tion to  that  Synod,  as  maintaining  a  testimony  both  against  the  Es- 
tablished Church  there,  and  against  other  parties;  particularly, 
against  the  Burghers  and  the  Reformed  Presbytery,  on  account  of 
errors  in  their  public  profession.  Of  the  various  religious  societies  in 
Great  Britain,  it  was  only  the  Associate  Synod  that  the  members  of 
the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania  were,  before  this  time,  con- 
nected with  in  church  communion.  But  now,  according  to  the  de- 
sign of  this  union,  those  who  joined  in  it,  and  their  followers,  were  to 
have  no  more  connection  with  that  Synod,  than  with  the  other  bodies 
now  mentioned  ;  or  rather,  that  connection  was  to  be  dissolved  for 
the  sake  of  new  connections.  When  the  articles,  which  we  have 
considered,  were  carried  by  the  casting  vote  of  the  moderator,  Mr. 
Marshal  and  Mr.  Clarkson,  with  three  elders,  protested  against  any 
further  proceeding  in  this  union  on  the  ground  of  these  articles,  and 
appealed  to  the  Associate  Synod.  They,  who  were  the  majority,  re- 
fused to  admit  the  protest,  on  account  of  the  appeal  it  contained. 
In  the  very  act  of  refusing  this  protest  and  appeal,  it  appeared,  as 
Mr.  Marshal  justly  observes,*  that  they  had  changed  their  ground. 

*  Vindication,  &c.,  page  36. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  477 

We  may  warrantably  infer  the  change  of  their  public  profession,  from 
the  change  of  their  ecclesiastical  connections. 

In  the  third  place,  it  appears  that  those  ministers,  who  joined  in 
this  union,  changed  their  public  profession,  because,  in  consequence 
of  that  step,  they  ceased  to  exhibit  any  particular  testimony  or  de- 
claration of  the  grounds  of  their  separate  communion,  or  to  require 
of  their  people  any  adherence  to  such  a  declaration,  as  a  part  of  their 
public  profession.  Mr.  Wilson  informs  us  that,  in  his  time,  the  As- 
sociate Presbytery  required  such  as  acceded  to  them,  or  came  under 
their  inspection,  to  signify  their  approbation  of  the  Judicial  Testi- 
mony ;*  and  Mr.  Gellatly  assures  us,  that  the  same  thing  was  one  of 
the  terms  of  communion,  which  he  and  his  brethren  used  to  declare 
to  the  people  on  preparation  days,  before  the  administration  of  the 
Lord's  supper. f  The  Associate  Reformed  Synod  said,  in  the  first 
edition  of  their  constitution,  "  that  it  was  their  intention  to  avail 
themselves  of  every  call  to  bear  a  pointed  testimony  against  the 
errors  and  delusions  which  prevail  in  this  country.''  These  words 
led  some  people  in  their  communion  to  expect  that  the  Synod  intended 
to  publish  a  testimony  similar  to  that  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  in 
the  year  1736.  But  after  these  people  had  waited  several  years,  they 
were  given  to  understand,  that  no  other  fixed  testimony  was  intended 
to  be  exhibited  by  this  Synod,  than  the  Confession  of  Faith,  the  Lar- 
ger and  Shorter  Catechisms,  the  directory  for  worship,  and  the  form 
of  church  government ;  and  in  1797,  the  Synod  published  an  act  as- 
signing reasons  for  this  determination.  This  was  manifestly  a  depar- 
ture from  the  public  profession  of  the  secession  church.  For  that  pro- 
fession acknowledges  that  several  even  of  those  churches,  which  own 
these  composures  of  the  Westminster  assembly,  are  still  going  on  in 
such  a  course  of  obstinate  and  increasing  defection  from  reformation 
attained,  as  requires  the  faithful  who  are  in  a  state  of  secession  from 
them,  to  continue,  as  yet,  in  that  state.  This  acknowledgment,  which 
is  certainly  asked  of  all  who  join  in  the  communion  of  the  Secession 
diurch,  is  not  made  by  a  simple  assent  to  the  Westminster  assembly's 
confession,  catechisms,  form  of  church  government,  and  directory  for 
worship.  For  these  compositions,  however  excellent,  give  no  descrip- 
tion of  the  present  state  of  the  visible  church;  and  without  such  a  descrip- 
tion understood  and  assented  to,  the  acknowledgment  now  mentioned 
cannot  be  made.  Those  therefore  who,  after  they  have  been  members 
of  the  Secession  church,  have  discarded  a  testimony  describing  the  er- 
rors and  other  evils  of  the  present  day,  and  hold  an  assent  to  the  con- 
fession of  faith,  and  the  other  compositions,  now  mentioned,  of  the 
Westminster  assembly  to  be  a  sufficient  profession  in  the  present  state 

*  Continnation  of  the  Defence,  chap.  v. 

+  Mr.  Gellatly's  Observations  on  the  Detection  Detected,  page  198. 


478  ALEXANDER  AND   EUFUS. 

of  the  church,  are  no  more  adhering  to  the  peculiar  profession  of  the 
secession  body  :  they  have  changed  their  ground  ;  and  join  them- 
selves to  those  who  both  own  that  confession  and  openly  reject  the 
secession  testimony. 

In  the  fourth  place,  the  occasional  communion,  acknowledged  to  be 
a  duty  in  the  first  constitution  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod,  indi- 
cates a  departure  from  the  public  profession  of  Seceders.  The  occa- 
sional communion  meant  is  not  the  sacramental  communion  to  which 
persons  are  occasionally  admitted  in  one  part  of  the  church,  while 
their  usual  place  of  abode,  and  of  attendance  on  public  ordinances,  is 
in  another  part  of  it.  The  warrantableness  of  such  occasional  com- 
munion is  not  disputed.  But  what  is  intended  is  a  communion 
sometimes  in  public,  and  even  sealing  ordinances  with  pious  people 
of  other  denominations,  who  obstinately  reject  some  part  of  our  pub- 
lic profession  ;  and  therefore  have  not  fixed  communion  with  us.  It 
is  the  catholic  or  latitudinarian  scheme  of  church  communion,  which 
we  formerly  considered,  and  against  which  the  secession  church  has 
uniformly  testified  ever  since  its  erection. 

Other  things  might  be  mentioned  to  this  purpose ;  but  what  has 
now  been  advanced  is  sufficient  to  show,  that  the  ministers  of  the  se- 
cession who  joined  in  this  union  changed  their  public  profession  :  they 
relinquished  a  purer  witnessing  profession ;  and  adopted  one  that 
was  laxer,  more  accommodating  and  congenial  to  the  ruling  principles 
and  manners  of  the  times. 

§  85.  Alex.  The  plan  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  tends  to 
union  ;  whereas  the  testimony  of  the  Seceders  is  used  by  many  of  them 
as  the  rallying  point  of  party  ;  and  tends  to  inflame  the  wounds  in  the 
body  of  Christ,  which  it  should  be  our  study  to  have  speedily  and 
thoroughly  healed. 

RuF.  In  order  to  determine  whether  the  plan  of  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Synod  be|preferable  to  that  of  the  Associate  body,  two  or  three 
things  ought  to  be  considered. 

In  the  first  place,  it  ought  to  be  enquired,  whether  the  rallying  of 
Seceders,  or  their  uniting  in  one  body  under  the  banner  of  a  Testimo- 
ny, be  only  for  propagating  the  knowledge  and  profession  of  the  truth 
as  it  is  in  Jesus,  and  the  practice  of  the  duties  he  has  enjoined  ?  If 
this  be  the  whole  design  of  their  testimony,  it  ought  rather  to  be  es- 
teemed the  rallying  point  of  all  the  friends  of  Christ,  than  that  of  a 
party.  On  the  other  hand,  if  any  assert  that  something  else  is  the  de- 
sign of  their  testimony  and  association  ;  the  assertion  must  either  be 
proved ;  or  it  must  be  considered  as  no  better  than  the  calumnies  that 
were  cast  by  the  heathens  upon  the  primitive  christians  ;  and  by  the 
followers  of  the  papal  antichrist  upon  those  that  appeared  as  faithful 
witnesses  against  their  abominations. 

In  the  next  place,  it  ought  to  be  enquired.  Whether  the  plan  of  the 
Associate  Reformed  Synod  in  relation  to  our  communion  be  not  more 


ALEXANDER  AND   EUFUS.  47Q 

schismatical  and  irregular,  than  that  of  the  Associate  body  :  Both 
these  bodies  keep  up  a  separate  communion  :  but  there  is  one  obvi- 
ous difference  between  them  ;  which  is,  that,  whilst  the  former  in  their 
testimony,  deal  plainly  with  us,  declarinj^;  the  reasons  of  their  sepa- 
rate communion,  the  latter  are  silent  on  that  head.  It  is  schismatical 
and  disorderly  for  any  to  keep  up  a  separate  communion,  when  their 
declared  reasons  are  not  sufficient.  But  it  is  still  more  so,  to  keep 
up  separate  communion,  without  any  declared  reasons  at  all.  In  this 
respect  the  plan  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  appears  to  be  an 
inexcusable  violation  of  the  peace  of  the  church.  Their  separate  com- 
munion, if  they  have  nothing  of  importance  to  offer  as  the  ground  of 
it,  is  very  sinful ;  as  it  promotes  groundless  prejudices  and  calumnious 
misrepresentations  ;  it  makes  a  division  in  the  church  of  Christ  with- 
out showing  how  it  may  be  healed.  The  people  that  belong  to  such 
a  separate  communion,  if  they  are  not  furnished  with  solid  and  scrip- 
tural reasons,  are  apt  to  take  up  with  any  uncertain  report  or  factious 
opinion  that  occurs,  as  an  apology  for  their  party.  How  many  at 
this  day  are  keeping  up  separate  communions  ignorantly,  or  from  a 
regard  to  old  or  local  customs  received  by  tradition  from  their  fathers  ; 
that  is,  they  are  perpetuating  unreasonable  divisions  in  the  church  of 
Christ,  in  w^hich  there  ought  to  be  no  divisions  at  all.*  But  if  the 
members  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  have  important  reasons 
for  their  separate  communion,  they  ought  to  declare  plainly  what 
they  are.  While  they  neglect  to  do  so,  they  neither  act  a  faithful 
part  towards  God,  nor  a  friendly  part  towards  us:  they  ought  not  to 
suffer  sin  upon  us  :  in  doing  so  they  evidence,  in  the  scriptural  sense, 
not  love,  but  hatred  to  us.f 

Alex.  However  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  stand  affected  to 
us,  they  are  plainly  enough  against  the  Seceders.  How  excellently 
do  they  reason  against  the  seceding  scheme  of  having  another  stand- 
ing testimony  that  our  Confession  of  Faith  !  "  Unless  the  Synod," 
say  they,  "  should  emit  a  testimony  which  would  be  an  immese  work, 
of  which  the  very  bulk  would  d-efeat  the  intention,  it  would  scarcely 
give  a  correcter  view  of  the  principles  of  the  Synod,  than  is  already 
given  in  their  received  confession  ;  because  it  could  scarcely  hold 
forth  any  truths,  which  are  not  therein  held  forth,  or  state  them  upon 
the  whole  with  more  luminous  precision.  The  opinion,  that  such  a 
testimony  is  needful  to  ascertain  the  Synod's  principles,  is  a  direct  im- 
peachment of  the  confession  itself;  since,  if  they  are  not  sufficiently 
ascertained  by  this,  it  must  be  either  lame  or  ambiguous  ;  and  then 
the  church  demands,  not  a  separate  testimony,  but  an  amended  con- 
fession. If  any  parts  of  it  are  differently  interpreted  and  abused  to 
the  promotion  of  error,  these  ought  to  be  explained  in  detached  acts  ; 
and  such  explanation  belongs  strictly  to  the  province  of  occasional 
testimonies." 

*  1  Corinth.  1  10.  f  Leyit.  xix. 


480  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

RuF.  What  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  seems  to  intend  in 
these  words  is  a  work  of  quite  a  different  kind  from  the  Secession 
Testimony  first  pubHshed  by  the  Associate  Presbytery  in  Scotland, 
and  since  that  time  by  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania. 
The  testimony  described  by  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  has  no 
reference  to  the  event  of  a  secession.  For  what  they  say  about  illus- 
trating the  truths  of  God  held  forth  in  the  Westminster  Confession  ; 
about  supplying  what  is  defective,  or  explaining  what  is  obscure,  might 
be  proper  in  any  state  of  the  church  ;  or  upon  supposition,  there  was 
no  more  divisions  in  it  than  when  the  Westminster  Confession  was  com- 
piled. The  immediate  and  peculiar  design  of  the  secession  testimony 
is  quite  different ;  it  is  to  enumerate  those  corruptions  in  doctrine, 
worship,  discipline  and  government ;  which,  considered  complexly 
were  the  ground  of  a  secession  ;  the  continuance  of  which  corruption 
occasions  the  continuance  of  a  separate  communion.  Thus  some 
articles  of  their  testimony,  as  it  is  stated  by  the  Associate  Presbytery 
of  Pennsylvania,  respect  the  corruptions  that  had  taken  place  in  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  Some  articles  refer  to  the  tenets  of  Messrs,  Sim- 
son  and  Campbell ;  such  as,  those  testifying  against  the  opinion  of  an 
obscure  objective  revelation  of  grace  made  to  the  heathens,  which  is 
sufficient  for  their  salvation  ;  and  against  the  denial  of  the  necessary 
Existence  and  Supreme  Deity  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  against  the 
denial  of  Adam's  representation  of  his  natural  descendants  in  the  cov- 
enant of  works  ;  against  the  scheme  that  makes  self-interest  or  hap- 
piness the  chief  end  and  motive  of  all  virtues  and  religious  actions. 
Other  articles  refer  to  an  act  of  the  General  Assembly  condemning 
some  doctrines  said  to  be  taught  in  the  book,  entitled,  the  Marrow  of 
Modern  Divinity  :  such  as,  the  articles  testifying  against  those  who 
teach  the  following  erroneous  opinions,  namely,  that  men  in  their  nat- 
ural state  are  not  under  the  law  as  a  covenant  of  works  ;  that  the  gos- 
pel is  a  new  law  having  commands  and  threatenings  peculiar  to  itself, 
which  do  not  belong  to  the  law  given  to  Adam  ;  that  the  offer  of  sal- 
vation in  the  gospel  is  made  to  none  but  awakened  and  penitent  sin- 
ners ;  that  no  particular  assurance  or  confidence,  that  we,  in  particu- 
lar, through  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  shall  be  saved,  be- 
longs to  the  nature  of  saving  faith  ;  that  believers  are  still  under  the 
command  of  the  law  as  a  covenant  of  works ;  and  that  the  fear  of 
punishment  and  hope  of  reward  are  their  chief  motives  to  obedience. 
Other  articles  refer  to  the  latitudinarian  scheme  of  church  commun- 
ion ;  the  influence  of  which  was  a  principal  cause  of  the  secession  in 
Scotland,  and  of  the  separate  communion  of  Seceders  being  kept  up 
both  there  and  in  this  country  ;  such  as,  the  articles  testifying  against 
those  who  teach  the  following  erroneous  opinions ;  namely,  that  we 
ought  not  to  separate  from  a  church  because  of  its  corruptions  and  its 
obstinacy  in  them,  till  we  are  assured,  that  it  is  become  wholly  a  syna- 
gogue of  Satan  ;   that  the  matters,  about  which  men  reputed  wise  and 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  481 

pious  differ,  ought  not  to  he  made  terms  of  communion  in  the  christian 
church  ;  that  confessions  of  faith  ought  not  to  be  terms  of  communion  ; 
that  our  Lord  Jesus  appointed  no  particular  form  of  government  in 
his  church  -,  but  left  it  to  ministers  or  to  civil  magistrates  to  appoint 
whatever  kind  of  government  they  should  think  proper  ;  that  public 
covenanting  is  not  a  duty  in  New  Testament  times  ;  and  that,  if  it 
be  a  duty  at  all,  it  is  not  seasonable  in  the  present  divided  state  of 
the  church.  One  article  of  it  is  against  the  opinion  of  those  who 
deny  the  duty  of  acknowledging  the  present  civil  government  and  of 
obeying  its  lawful  commands.  Some  articles  refer  to  opinions  or 
practices,  which  seem  to  be  more  prevalent  now,  than  they  were  at 
the  time  in  which  the  secession  took  place  in  Scotland  ;  such  as,  the 
articles  testifying  against  this  opinion,  that  the  sonship  of  Christ  is 
founded  in  his  office  of  Mediator  ;  against  the  practice  of  singing 
human  compositions  in  public  worshiping  assemblies  instead  of  the 
psalms  or  songs  delivered  to  the  church  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures  ; 
against  the  custom  of  baptizing  privately,  or  when  a  congrega- 
tion is  not  publicly  called  together  to  wait  on  the  dispensation  of 
the  word. 

The  opinions  and  practices  now  specified  were  stated  in  the  Testi- 
mony of  the  Associate  Presbytery  in  Scotland,  or  in  that  of  the  As- 
sociate Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  as  evils  prevailing  and  obstinately 
persisted  in,  either  in  the  Established  Church  of  Scotland,  or  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church  of  America  ;  and  as  reasons  for  a  separate  com- 
munion from  these  churches.* 

*  From  this  enumeration  of  particulars  in  the  Secession  Testimony  appears  the 
injustice  of  sayin^^,  that  to  decline  from  a  public  and  express  adherence  to  that 
Testimony,  is  only  to  lay  aside  some  local  peculiarities.  For  these  particulars 
have  no  peculiar  relation  to  the  situation  of  the  church  in  any  place  of  the  world. 
They  especially  who  profess  adherence  to  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  the 
Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms,  the  form  of  presby terial  church  government,  and 
directory  for  public  worship,  cannot,  consistently  with  their  profession,  represent 
the  Secession  Testimony  as  made  up  of  local  peculiarities.  For  the  truths  and 
duties  maintained,  not  only  in  the  assertory  part  of  that  Testimony,  but  even  in 
the  articles  referring  to  facts,  are  the  same  with  those  exhibited  in  the  composures 
of  the  Westminster  Assembly  now  mentioned ;  and,  therefore,  in  giving  up  the 
public  profession  of  the  former,  persons  decline  from  the  due  profession  of  the 
latter.  Thus,  for  example,  to  decline  from  the  article  of  that  Testimony  against 
the  acceptance  of  the  indulgences  granted  to  ministers  by  Charles  the  Second,  is 
to  recede  from  the  public  profession  of  the  principle  contained  in  chap.  xxx.  sect. 
1,  of  the  Confession :  "  The  Lord  Jesus,  as  King  and  Head  of  his  church,  has 
therein  appointed  a  government  in  the  head  of  church-officers,  distinct  from  the 
civil  magistrate." 

In  declining  from  the  article  against  the  form  of  swearing  by  kissing  a  book, 
pei'sons  depart  from  a  due  adherence  to  the  public  profession  of  the  principle  ex- 
hibited in  chap.  xxi.  sect.  2,  of  the  Confession :  "  The  acceptable  -^vay  of  worship- 
ing the  true  God  is  instituted  by  himself;  and  so  limited  by  his  own  revealed 
will,  that  he  may  not  be  worshiped  according  to  the  imaginations  and  devices  of 
men,  or  any  other  way  not  prescribed  in  the  Holy  Scriptures."  In  dropping  the 
article  of  that  testimony  against  the  General  Assembly's  omission  of  adequate 
censure  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Simon's  venting  and  maintaining  Arian  tenets,  persons 
recede  from  the  public  profession  of  the  principle  expressed  in  the  Confess,  chap, 
xxx.  sect.  4 :  "  Church  censures  are  necessary  for  the  reclaiming  and  gaining  of 
31 


482  ALEXANDER  AND   RUFUS. 

Several  things  evidently  follow  from  this  account  of  the  nature  of 
the  Secession  Testimony ;  such  as,  1st,  That  when  a  warrantable  se- 
cession from  any  particular  church  takes  place,  such  a  testimony  is  in- 
dispensably necessary  ;  as  it  is  the  ground  upon  which  any  can  ration- 
ally or  conscientiously  accede  to  the  cause  of  the  secession  ;  which 
cause,  upon  the  supposition  that  the  secession  was  just  and  necessary, 
is  the  cause  of  God  and  truth. 

2.  That  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  cannot  answer  the 
purpose  of  such  a  testimony  :  it  cannot  be  rationally  supposed  to  be 
a  proper  statement  of  the  grounds  of  an  event,  which  the  Westmin- 
ster Assembly  never  had  nor  could  have  in  contemplation ;  and  this 
is  more  evidently  the  case,  when  the  party,  from  whom  the  secession 
is  made,  professes  adherence  to  that  confession.  For,  in  this  case, 
there  is  the  same  necessity  for  a  testimony  against  the  erroneous  who 
own  the  Westminster  confession,  that  there  was  for  that  confession 
against  the  erroneous,  who  own  the  former  confessions  the  Reformed 
churches,  or  what  is  called  the  apostle's  creed. 

3.  That  occasional  testimonies,  such  as  the  Associate  Reformed 
Synod  proposes  to  publish  from  time  to  time,  do  not  answer  the  pur- 
pose of  a  secession  testimony  :  because,  when  a  testimony  is  published 

offending  brethren,  for  the  deterring  of  others,  for  vindicating  the  honor  of  Christ, 
&c.  For  the  better  attaining  of  these  ends,  the  officers  are  to  proceed  by  ad- 
monition, suspension  and  excommunication  from  the  church,  according  to  the 
nature  of  the  crime  and  demerit  of  the  offence."  There  is  an  article  of  that  testi- 
mony against  the  submission  of  the  ministers  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  to  the 
act  of  parliament  concerning  captain  John  Porteus  enjoining  each  of  them  to  read 
this  act  from  the  pulpit  the  first  Sabbath  of  every  month  for  a  whole  year,  under 
the  penalty  of  being  declared  incapable  of  sitting  and  voting  in  any  ecclesiastical 
court ;  because  such  admission  was  a  profanation  of  the  Lord's  day,  and  an  un- 
lawful subordinating  of  themselves  in  the  exercise  of  their  office  to  the  civil  pow- 
ers :  To  decline  from  a  testimony  against  such  submission,  is  to  recede  from  the 
public  profession  of  what  is  taught  in  the  Larger  Cat.  quest.  116:  "The  fourth 
commandment  requireth  of  all  men  the  sanctifying  or  keeping  holy  to  God  ex- 
pressly one  whole  day  in  seven:"— and  what  is  taught  in  the  Confession,  chap. 
XXX.  i :  "  The  Lord  Jesus,  as  King  and  Head  of  his  church,  hath  therein  appointed 
a  government,  in  the  hands  of  church-officers,  to  whom  the  keys  of  the  kingdom 
of  Heaven  are  committed."  To  decline  from  a  testimony  against  holding  church 
communion  with  Mr.  Whitefleld  avowing  his  adherence  to  the  superstitious 
Church  of  England,  is  to  recede  from  a  public  adherence  to  the  plan  of  church  gov- 
ernment laid  down  from  the  word  of  God  by  the  "Westminster  Assembly.  To  de- 
cline from  a  public  testimony  against  the  forming  of  any  representations  of  Christ 
in  the  imagination,  is  to  recede  from  the  public  profession  of  the  principle  ex- 
pressed in  the  Larger  Cat.  quest.  109 :  "  The  second  command  forbids  the  making 
of  any  representations  of  God  at  all,  or  of  any  of  the  Three  Persons,  either  in- 
wardly in  the  mind,  or  outwardly  in  any  kind  of  images." 

Thus  we  might  go  through  the  other  articles  of  the  Secession  Testimony,  and 
show  that  our  adherence  to  them  is  no  more  than  what  is  implied  in  a  due  adher- 
ence to  the  Westminster  Confession  and  Catechisms,  But  it  does  not  follow  that 
a  public  profession  of  adherence  to  the  Westminster  Confession  supersedes  the 
necessity  of  a  public  profession  of  adherence  to  that  testimony;  as  it  is  a  more 
particular  statement  of  doctrines  and  duties,  which  are  opposed  by  many  who  own 
that  confession  in  some  way  or  other.  For  many  will  own  general  truths  and  de- 
clarations of  duty,  who  obstinately  reject  the  application  of  them  to  particular 
eases  and  present  circumstances.  A  general  proposition  is  often  admitted ;  and 
yet  the  native  and  necessary  consequences  of  it  denied. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  483 

under  the  name  of  an  occasional  one,  it  does  not  certainly  appear 
whether  it  belongs  to  the  ground  of  the  separate  communion  of  those 
who  publish  it :  for  there  may  be  various  other  occasions  than  a  se- 
cession, for  such  testimonies ;  such  as  the  case  of  one  or  two  mem- 
bers falling  into  error  ;  or  the  rise  and  spread  of  errors  among  those 
with  whom  the  people  of  the  secession  body  were  never  connected 
in  church  communion.  It  is  obvious,  that  the  occasional  testimo- 
nies of  the  A  ssociate  Reformed  Synod  could  not  be  intended  to  show 
the  necessity  of  their  separate  communion  :  as  that  communion  ex- 
isted a  considerable  time  before  this  method  was  adopted ;  and 
as  their  occasional  testimonies  are  not  represented  as  terms  of  com- 
munion. 

4.  That  the  excellence  of  a  secession  testimony  does  not  lie  in  the 
extent  and  variety  of  the  articles,  of  which  it  consists  ;  but  in  the 
plainness  and  faithfulness,  with  which  it  exhibits  the  cause  of  a  neces- 
sary secession  or  of  a  continued  separate  communion.  There  is  rather 
an  impropriety  in  introducing  articles,  which,  however  important, 
have  no  particular  concern  in  that  cause  ;  and  which  are  held  forth 
with  sufficient  precision  in  former  judicial  declarations,  particularly 
in  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith. 

5.  That  it  is  a  fanciful  and  even  ridiculous  objection  against  the 
exhibition  of  a  secession  testimony,  that  it  tends  to  an  excessive  mul- 
tiplication of  testimonies  ;  since  there  never  was,  nor  is,  nor  will  be 
any  more  than  one  occasion  of  such  a  testimony  j  and  that  is  the  se- 
cession, the  grounds  of  which  the  testimony  is  designed  to  set  forth. 
At  this  moment  I  can  recollect  but  two  secessions,  which  deserve  to 
be  called  necessary  and  scriptural,  since  the  compiling  of  the  "West- 
minster Confession  of  Faith  ;  of  which  the  one  was  that  of  a  great 
many  ministers  and  people  from  the  Church  of  England  on  account 
of  the  imposition  of  the  liturgy  and  ceremonies,  in  the  time  of  Charles 
the  Second.  And  that  of  the  Associate  ministers  from  the  Church  of 
Scotland.  Nor  is  it  less  ridiculous  to  speak  of  such  a  testimony 
swelling  to  an  unwieldy  bulk ;  since  the  reasons  of  a  necessary  and 
scriptural  secession  are  usually  plain  and  sensibly  felt  by  the  sincere 
lovers  of  Christ  and  his  cause,  and  may  be  comprised  within  a  small 
compass.  Several  of  the  Confessions  of  the  Reformed  churches  make 
but  a  few  pages  ;  and  yet  each  of  them  comprehends  a  faithful  and 
even  a  particular  testimony  against  the  abominations  of  the  papal 
antichrist.  Now  one  should  think,  that  the  secession  from  the  Church 
of  Rome  required  a  larger  testimony,  than  the  secession  from  any  de- 
generate Protestant  church  would  require. 

Alex.  Your  observations  on  the  words,  which  I  quoted  from  the 
Associate  Reformed  Synod,  have  been  long.  I  hope  you  will  be 
more  concise  in  giving  your  opinion  concerning  the  following  words 
of  that  Synod.  Such  a  testimony,  say  they,  could  not  deter  from 
application  for  ministerial  or  christian  communion  with  the  Synod 


484  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

any  who  are  not  really  friendly  to  the  doctrine  of  grace  ;  since  one 
who  can  profess  attachment  to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  while  he 
is  secretly  hostile  to  its  truths,  is  too  far  advanced  in  dishonesty  to 
be  impeded  for  a  moment  by  any  testimony,  which  the  wisdom  of 
men  can  frame.  It  could  not  silence  the  objections  and  cavils  of 
such  as  incline  to  misrepresent  the  principles  and  character  of  the 
Synod. 

RuF.  My  answer  to  these  reasons  shall  be  short ;  since  they  seem 
to  proceed  upon  the  same  mistake  as  to  the  nature  and  design  of  a 
secession  testimony,  with  the  former  passage.  For  it  is  not  the  busi- 
ness of  such  a  testimony  to  detect  the  errors  that  have  been  taught 
in  opposition  to  the  doctrines  of  Christianity  in  general ;  or  to  silence 
cavils  and  objections ;  but  only  to  state  plainly  and  faithfully  the 
reasons  which  caused  a  necessary  and  scriptural  secession.  Besides, 
what  is  here  said  serves  the  Synod  no  better  as  an  excuse  for  their 
not  exhibiting  a  more  particular  judicial  testimony,  than  it  would 
have  served  the  Westminster  Assembly  as  an  apology  for  declining 
the  work  of  compiling  the  confession.  For  they  might  have  said, 
that  one  who  would  profess  attachment  to  the  former  confessions  of 
the  Reformed  church,  and  yet  continue  secretly  hostile  to  the  truths 
contained  in  them,  was  too  far  gone  in  dishonesty,  to  be  impeded  for 
a  moment  from  seeking  communion  by  any  confession  which  the  wis- 
dom of  man  could  frame  ;  nor  could  they  expect,  that  it  would  silence 
the  cavils  and  objections  of  such  as  were  inclined  to  misrepresent  the 
principles  and  character  of  that  Assembly.  This  is  too  much  in  the 
spirit  of  an  indolent  watchman,  who,  having  neglected  to  give  the 
people  seasonable  warning  of  their  danger,  should  attempt  to  excuse 
his  omission,  by  alleging  his  apprehensions,  that  no  warning,  that  he 
could  give,  would  be  regarded.  Such  apprehension  of  consequences, 
is  by  no  means  the  rule  of  duty.* 

Alex.  The  Synod  further  observes,  that  such  a  testimony  could 
not  lift  up  a  perpetual  banner  for  truth  ;  since,  from  the  ever  fluctu- 
ating state  of  religious  controversy,  and  the  impossibility  of  foreseeing 
tne  different  shapes  which  error  may  assume,  some  parts  of  it  would 

*  Rufus's  time  does  not  permit  him  to  examine  abstractly  the  sentiment  here  of 
the  Associate  Reformed  Synod ;  which  is,  that  a  more  particular  declaration  of  a 
point  of  truth,  as  in  the  secession  testimony,  may  be  as  easily  evaded  or  perverted, 
as  the  more  general  declaration  of  it  in  the  Confession  of  Faith.  But  it  may  not 
be  amiss  to  take  notice  of  a  just  observation  in  a  publication  by  the  late  Rev.  Mr. 
Beveridge,  of  Cambridge,  in  the  state  of  New-York,  viz.,  "  That  many  have  per- 
verted the  thirty-nine  articles  of  the  Church  of  England  to  an  Arminian  sense,  who 
would  never  have  attempted  to  expound  the  Lambeth  articles  in  favor  of  opin- 
ions, which  they  so  expressly  condemn."  So,  many  will  attempt  to  reconcile  the 
distinction  between  the  covenant  of  redemption  and  the  covenant  of  grace,  and 
the  holding  of  true  repentance  to  be,  in  the  order  of  nature,  before  saving  faith,  to 
the  Westminster  Confession,  who  will  never  think  of  reconciling  these  tenets  to 
the  declaration  and  testimony  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania.  The 
case  is  the  same  with  many  other  points  of  truth.  See  the  Difference  briefly  sta- 
te-^,  page  17. 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS.  485 

gradually  grow  obsolete,  while  some  would  be  deficient;  and  the 
same  necessity  for  occasional  testimonies  would  still  remain.  In  the 
nature  of  things,  it  would,  after  a  short  time,  at  most  a  few  years,  be 
out  of  print  and  out  of  date ;  and,  ceasing  to  interest  the  public  curi- 
osity would  utterly  fail  of  accomplishing  its  end. 

RuF.  The  members  of  Synod  still  proceed  upon  the  same  mistake. 
For  if  they  had  attended  to  the  nature  of  a  secession  testimony,  they 
could  never  have  supposed,  as  they  do,  that  it  would  be  necessary,  in 
composing  such  a  testimony,  to  foresee  the  different  shapes  which 
error  may  assume  ;  while  it  is  evident,  that  such  a  testimony  has 
nothing  to  do  with  error,  in  any  other  shape  than  that  in  which  it  oc- 
casioned the  secession ;  the  grounds  of  which  the  testimony  exhibits. 
Upon  the  same  false  ground,  they  suppose  that  a  secession  testimony 
for  the  truths  of  God  will  grow  obsolete,  or  be  altogether  neglected. 
There  are  only  two  ways,  that  I  can  see,  in  which  this  can  take 
place.  One  is,  a  universal  prevalence  of  the  errors  against  which  it 
is  lifted  up,  and  a  universal  oblivion  of  the  Divine  truths  which  it 
is  designed  to  maintain.  This  is  a  tremendous  event  indeed  :  But 
it  will  never  be  permitted  by  Him  whose  eyes  are  upon  the  truth ; 
who  has  given  his  church  a  promise,  that  his  name,  which  includes 
all  his  truths  and  ordinances,  shall  endure  forever.  The  other  way 
is,  when  the  truths  of  God,  for  which  the  testimony  had  been  lifted 
up,  comes,  through  the  effusion  of  the  Spirit  of  truth,  to  be  generally 
and  cordially  received,  and  particularly  by  the  ecclesiastical  body, 
from  which  the  secession  had  been  made.  The  genuine  friends  of 
such  a  testimony  desire  nothing  more  than  to  see  it  brought,  as  to 
its  present  form,  or  as  maintained  in  a  separate  communion,  to  such 
an  euthanasia,  or  comfortable  issue.  Upon  this  condition,  they  care 
n<3t  how  soon  it  should  be,  as  the  Synod  say,  out  of  print  and  out 
of  mind. 

§  86.  Alex.  So,  then,  you  mean,  that  we  ought  to  adopt  the  tes- 
mony  of  the  Seceders. 

RuF.  We  should  receive  the  love  of  the  truth,  that  we  may  be 
saved.  1  am  persuaded,  were  we  in  our  judicial  capacity,  to  assert 
every  truth  of  God's  word,  which  is  an  article  of  their  testimony,  and 
to  condemn  the  contrary  errors  ;  and  were  we  to  comply  with  the 
calls  they  give  us  to  reform,  so  far  as  their  calls  coincide  with  those 
of  God's  word,  in  a  fair  and  honest  application  of  it  to  our  circum- 
stances, we  would  soon  annihilate  the  secession  body  in  America.  0, 
Sir,  were  ministers,  elders  and  people  excited,  in  their  several  places 
and  stations,  to  set  earnestly  about  this  blessed  work  of  reformation ; 
our  land  would  soon  come  to  be  called,  as  Scotland  was  in  her 
better  days,  Hephzibah  and  Beulah,  delighted  in  and  married  to  the 
Lord. 

Alex.  I  have  no  doubt,  that  glory  would  dwell  in  our  land,  should 
the  inhabitants  duly  receive  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel; 


486  -  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

and  make  real  heart-religion  their  care.  For  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  not  meat  and  drink  ;  like  many  of  the  punctilios  which  the  Sece- 
ders  contend  for  ;  but  righteousness  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

RuF.  I  apprehend,  we  cannot,  with  any  propriety,  rank  the  evils 
against  which  the  Seceders  testify,  among  indifferent  matters  ;  such 
as  the  observation  of  meats  and  days  among  the  Jewish  converts.,  be- 
tween the  time  of  Christ's  resurrection  and  the  destruction  of  the  tem- 
ple at  Jerusalem.  For  all  the  reasoning  of  Seceders  about  these 
evils,  goes  to  prove  them  to  be  breaches  of  the  moral  law,  and  to 
show,  that  the  practice  of  them  is  greatly  aggravated,  as  being  con- 
trary to  what  the  reformed  churches  have  attained,  and  engaged  by 
solemn  covenant  to  keep  pure  and  entire.  So  that,  if  we  will  justify 
ourselves  with  regard  to  what  the  Seceders  call  evils,  it  will  not  be 
sufficient  for  that  purpose,  to  term  them  indifferent  matters,  meats 
and  drinks  : — We  must  first  prove  them  to  be  so  :  we  must  show 
that  there  is  no  moral  evil  in  the  opposition  we  have  made  to  the  tes- 
timony which  the  Seceders  have  lifted  up  against  the  corruptions  of 
the  Church  of  Scotland  ;  in  our  occasional  communion  with  Indepen- 
dents, and  other  opposers  of  presbyterial  church  goverment ;  in  our 
neglecting  to  censure  those  who  propagate  error  by  the  press ;  in  the 
singing  of  hymns  of  human  composure  in  public  worship,  instead  of  the 
scripture  Psalms  and  Songs ;  in  allowing  many  in  our  communion  to 
continue  in  such  practices  as  those  of  swearing  by  kissing  a  book,  tak- 
ing the  Mason  oath,  and  encouraging  public  lotteries.  We  must  show 
their  reasoning  on  these  and  the  like  subjects  to  be  inconclusive.  Our 
attempts  to  this  purpose  have  hitherto  been  unsuccessful.  I  must  own 
I  cannot  reflect  without  astonishment  on  our  inattention  to  the  neces- 
sity and  importance  of  obedience  to  God's  revealed  will  as  to  the  ex- 
ternals of  religion.  The  Seceders  often  urge,  that  God's  commands 
about  these  things  bear  the  same  stamp  of  his  authority,  with  his 
commands  about  other  things ;  that  he  has  often  given  awful  mani- 
festations of  his  wrath,  on  account  of  men's  neglect  of  some  obser- 
vance in  the  external  part  of  his  worship  ;  as  in  his  declaring  Saul  to 
be  rejected  for  taking  upon  him  to  offer  sacrifice  before  Samuel  came  ; 
in  smiting  Uzzah  for  touching  the  ark  ;  in  slaying  the  man  of  God 
who  prophesied  against  Jeroboam's  altar  for  turning  back  to  eat  bread 
and  drink  water,  contrary  to  God's  command ;  in  the  controversy 
which  God  had  so  long  with  the  Jews  for  their  worship  on  the  high 
places.  It  is  the  concern  of  those  who  desire  to  be  found  faithful, 
to  fall  in  with  every  command  of  Christ,  though  it  were  about  the 
smallest  matters ;  and  it  is  diametrically  opposite  to  the  new  nature 
of  his  people,  to  account  any  deviation  from  the  rule  of  his  word  a 
small  matter.  It  is  the  Lord's  wey  to  bring  his  people,  in  the  first 
place,  to  an  organized  church  state ;  to  a  pure  confession  and  pure 
ordinances.     This  order  is  represented  in  the  vision  of  the  dry  bones 


ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS,  487 

in  the  xxxviith  chapter  of  Ezekiel.  In  the  first  place,  bone  came  to 
its  bone  ;  flesh  and  skin  covered  them  above  :  after  that,  breath  came 
into  them  ;  they  lived,  and  stood  up  a  great  army.  The  Lord  will 
turn  to  the  people  a  pure  language  ]  that  is  a  pure  profession  and  pure 
ordinances ;  and  then  they  shall  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord,  and 
serve  him  with  one  consent. 

Alex.  Though  I  should,  grant,  (what  you  urge  so  much,)  the  impor- 
tance of  the  matters  contended  for  by  Seceders  ]  yet,  you  allow,  that 
they  are  expressed  or  implied  in  our  Confession  of  Faith,  in  our  cat- 
echisms, in  our  form  of  church  government  and  discipline,  or  in  our 
directory  for  the  worship  of  God.  Is  not  a  profession,  then,  of  ad- 
herence to  all  these  forms,  a  sufficient  profession  of  the  christian  re- 
ligion ?  And  is  it  not,  therefore  unnecessary  to  adopt  the  particular 
acts  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  ;  such  as,  their  judicial  testimony, 
their  act  concerning  the  doctrine  of  grace,  their  act  concerning  the 
renewing  of  the  covenants,  their  declaration  concerning  civil  govern- 
ment, and  their  sentence  concerning  the  religious  clause  of  some  bur- 
gess oaths  ? 

Rur.  The  adherence  to  the  Westminster  Confession,  which  our 
church  had  agreed,  in  1726,  to  require  of  candidates  for  the  ministry, 
was  accounted,  by  Seceders,  lax  and  indeterminate  ;  as  it  was  at- 
tended with  an  exception  of  what  any  of  our  presbyteries  might,  in 
licencing  or  ordaining  a  candidate,  ''judge  not  essential  or  necessary 
in  doctrine,  worship  and  government."  This  exception  is  omitted  in 
the  form  of  adherence  which  our  presbyteries  are  directed  to  require 
in  the  form  of  government  adopted  in  our  Synod  in  1788.  The  words 
of  that  form  of  adherence  are.  That  the  candidate  "  sincerely  receives 
and  adopts  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  this  church,  as  containing  the 
system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  holy  scriptures ;  and  that  he  approves 
of  the  government  and  discipline  of  the  Presbyterian  church  as  pre- 
scribed in  the  form  of  the  government  and  discipline  of  the  Presby- 
terian church  in  these  United  States."  But  still  our  adherence  to  the 
Westminster  Confession,  and  to  the  Presbyterian  form  of  church  gov- 
ernment will  appear  defective  and  lax,  when  the  form  of  expressing 
it  now  recited,  is  compared  with  the  terms  in  which  the  Church  of 
Scotland  appointed  candidates  at  their  licence  and  ordination  to  ex- 
press their  adherence  to  that  confession  :  every  such  candidate  there 
being  required  to  declare,  that  he  owns  and  believes  the  whole  doc- 
trine contained  in  that  confession  ;  and  that  he  owns  it  as  the  confes- 
sion of  his  faith  :  when  we  consider,  that  our  judicatories  have  not,  by 
any  judicial  deed,  renounced  the  prelatical  and  independent  forms  of 
church  government,  as  contrary  to  the  word  of  God  ;  nor  acknowledg- 
ed the  exception  above  mentioned  in  the  act  of  1726,  to  be  so,  though 
it  is  left  out  in  the  form  of  church  government  and  dicipliue  more 
lately  agreed  to  ;  and  especially,  while  the  scheme  of  occasional  com- 
munion in  sealing  ordinances  with  Episcopalians  and  Independents  is 


488  .  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

not  censured,  but  rather  countenauced  and  approved  by  ministers  and 
people  in  our  church.  Besides,  the  difference  between  the  state  of 
the  church  at  the  time  when  the  Westminster  Confession  was  compos- 
ed and  her  present  state,  may  convince  us  that  some  other  statement 
of  various  points  of  truth  and  duty,  in  opposition  to  the  errors  and 
corruption  of  our  day,  is  necessary  to  a  faithful  exhibition  of  the  cause 
of  Christ  now,  than  what  was  necessary  to  such  an  exhibition  of  it 
then. 

Before  we  part,  I  may  add  some  observations  on  the  continued  re- 
gard, which  is  due  to  such  testimonies,  or  ecclesiastical  deeds,  as  those 
you  have  just  now  mentioned,  of  the  Associate  Presbytery, 

The  scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  are  the  store-house 
of  all  Divine  truth ;  and  nothing  is  to  be  received  as  such,  but  what 
is  found  in  these  inspired  writings.  The  only  ground  upon  which  we 
are  to  receive  any  proposition,  as  a  Divine  truth,  is  the  holy  scrip- 
tures, and  not  any  creeds,  confessions  or  testimonies  of  men  ;  and 
yet,  the  scriptures,  themselves  bind  us  to  receive  and  hold  fast  such 
creeds,  confessions  and  testimonies,  so  far  as  they  are  consonant  to 
the  scriptures,  and  evidently  express  truths  contained  in  them.  Such 
acts  or  deeds  of  the  church  of  Christ  as  exhibit  any  Divine  truth,  in 
opposition  to  error,  are  to  be  zealously  maintained : 

1.  As  they  declare  who  particular  truths  revealed,  or  duties  en- 
joined in  the  Divine  word,  the  church  is,  at  any  time,  more  especially 
called  upon  to  appear  for  and  defend.  Such  a  truth  or  duty  is  called 
"the  word  of  Christ's  patience,  or  the  present  truth,"  Revel,  iii.  10. 

2.  As  they  are  laudable  examples  of  the  due  exercise  of  that  au- 
thority, with  which  Christ  has  intrusted  the  ministers  of  his  church, 
in  the  judicial  assertion  of  truth,  and  in  the  judicial  condemnation 
of  error.  Such  deeds  of  the  church,  passed  in  one  time  or  place,  are 
to  be  imitated  in  other  times  and  places.  The  apostle  commends  the 
Thessalonians,  because  they  were  imitators  of  the  churches  of  God, 
which  were  in  Judea.  There  is  nothing  in  which  we  ought  to  be  more 
careful  to  imitate  other  churches,  than  in  their  acts  for  the  mainten- 
ance of  Divine  truth,  1  Thessal.  ii.  14. 

3.  As  they  declare  what  the  church  of  God  has  attained.  In  this 
view,  we  cannot  refuse  to  espouse  and  retain  acts  or  deeds  of  church 
judicatories,  the  scope  or  design  of  which  is  undeniably  the  mainten- 
ance of  truths  revealed,  or  duties  enjoined  in  the  scriptures,  without 
being  chargeable  with  backsliding,  or  declining  to  go  forward  in  the 
path  of  duty  ;  nay,  without  disobedience  to  the  solemn  charge  whidh 
Christ  gives  to  each  particular  church,  "  Hold  fast  that  which  thou 
hast,"  Revel,  ii.  25— iii.  11. 

4.  As  they  are  memorials  of  the  Lord's  goodness  in  bringing  his 
church  in  particular  times  and  places  to  the  scriptural  profession  of 
the  truth,  or  to  the  scriptural  order  represented  in  such  acts  or  deeds. 
Every  such  attainment  is  of  the  Lord  ;  and  belongs  to  the  salvation 


ALEXANDEE  AND  RUFUS.  489 

of  the  church  which  he  is  working.  Psalms  Ixxiv.  12.  Whatever 
belongs  to  the  reformation  of  the  church  is  to  be  acknowledged  as  an 
instance  of  the  great  goodness  he  has  bestowed  on  the  house  of  Israel, 
according  to  his  mercies,  and  according  to  the  multitude  of  his  loving 
kindnesses.     Isai.  Ixiii.  7. 

4.  As  every  such  act  or  deed  is  a  public  profession  of  adherence 
to  some  particular  truth  or  duty  ;  and  implies  an  engagement  to  abide 
in  that  profession.  Such  an  act  or  deed  is,  in  fact,  the  consent  or 
promise  of  the  particular  church,  by  whose  ministers,  in  their  judicial 
capacity,  it  was  enacted.  It  is  of  the  nature  of  a  vow,  as  it  is  a 
promise  made  to  God  ;  and  therefore,  a  particular  church  can  neither 
retract  nor  lay  aside  such  an  act  or  deed,  without  being  chargeable 
with  breach  of  promise,  and  with  treachery  to  her  God. 

Alex.  Our  conversations,to  which  we  must  not  put  to  a  period, have 
taught  me  to  think  and  speak  more  favorably  of  the  profession  of  the 
Seceders.  I  must  own,  I  am  now  ashamed  of  the  opinion  I  once  en- 
tertained of  the  principles  of  the  Seceders,  while  I  had  not  perused 
their  judicial  deeds,  and  had  my  knowledge  of  them  only  through 
the  medium  of  partial  or  superficial  representations. 

RuF.  It  is  obvious,  that  the  misrepresentation  of  the  principles  of 
the  Secession  church,  is  less  excusable  than  that  of  the  principles  of 
other  religious  societies ;  for  while  our  information  of  what  is  held  by 
other  societies  must  be  derived,  in  a  great  measure,  from  conversation 
or  private  writings,  the  Secession  church  has  taken  care  to  have  every 
particular,  belonging  to  their  peculiar  profession,  stated  with  accuracy 
and  precision  in  their  public  and  judicial  deeds.  Having,  since  we 
began  our  conversation  on  the  Secession  Testimony,  reviewed  the  prin- 
cipal objections  against  it ;  and  having  weighed  them  in  the  balance 
of  God's  word,  looking  up  to  the  Father  of  mercies  for  his  enlighten- 
ing Spirit ;  I  now  find  myself  fully  determined  to  espouse  that  cause, 
and,  through  grace,  to  live  and  die  a  sincere  professor  of  it.  I  am 
persuaded,  that  the  steadfast  adherence,  which  the  Secession  Testi- 
mony requires,  to  the  whole  doctrine,  worship  and  government  of  the 
church  of  Christ,  and  the  unanimity,  which  that  testimony  also,  re- 
quires, not  only  of  ministers,  but  all  other  church  members,  in  their 
adherence  to  all  the  real  reformation  which  has  been  attained,  since 
the  erection  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  will  in  a  great  measure,  con- 
stitute the  more  eminent  glory  of  the  latter  days.  For,  when  the  light 
the  moon  shall  be  as  the  light  of  the  sun,  and  the  light  of  the  sun  shall 
be  seven-fold,  as  the  light  of  seven  days ;  the  Lord  will  bind  up  the 
breach  of  his  people,  and  heal  the  stroke  of  their  wound  :  Isai.  xxx. 
26  ;  they- will  then  see  eye  to  eye,  and  call  on  him  with  one  conseHt. 


490  ALEXANDER  AND  EUFUS 


APPENDIX. 


NO.  1.    OF  THE  DUTY  OF  THE  CIVIL  MAGISTRATE. 

As  one  principal  end  of  those  judicial  deeds,  which  express  the 
agreement  of  an  association  of  christians  in  certain  articles  of  Divine 
truth,  and  their  rejection  of  contrary  errors,  is  to  promote  mutual  con- 
fidence with  regard  to  their  joint  concurrence  in  the  belief  and  sup- 
port of  such  articles  ;  so,  in  order  that  these  deeds  may  answer  that 
end,  it  is  necessary  that  they  be  preserved  inviolable.  It  is  no  suffi- 
cient reason  for  altering  an  expression  in  any  passage  of  such  a  deed, 
that  an  opposer  of  the  truth,  which  that  passage  was  designed  to  ex- 
press, misrepresents  its  meaning.  Readers  may  often  complain  of  ob- 
scurity, while  the  fault  is  not  in  the  composition,  but  in  their  own  in- 
attention and  unjust  prejudice.  When  any  passage  of  a  judicial  deed 
has  been  much  abused,  or  is  not  sufficiently  guarded  against  miscon- 
struction, it  seems  better  to  illustrate  the  doctrine  in  a  separate  deed, 
than  merely  to  alter  some  words  of  the  former  one  :  such  a  separate 
deed  will  be  more  satisfactory,  as  being  a  more  correct  and  full  de- 
claration of  the  truth.  It  seems  more  especially  improper,  for  one 
ecclesiastical  body  to  alter  any  deed  of  another,  making  it  rather  ex- 
press their  own  views,  than  those  of  the  body  by  which  it  was  origin- 
ally framed.  For  hereby  the  sentiments  of  one  body  may  be  unfairly 
palmed  upon  another  Hence  the  members  of  the  Associate  Presby- 
tery of  Pennsylvania,  in  framing  their  Declaration  and  Testimony, 
declined  making  such  alterations  in  the  confession  of  the  Westmin- 
ster Assembly,  as  have  been  made  by  the  General  Assembly  and  by 
the  Associate  Reformed  Synod,  in  the  articles  respecting  the  power 
of  the  civil  magistrate ;  and  chose  rather  to  express  their  judgment 
on  that  head,  as  they  have  done,  in  the  first  part  of  their  Declaration 
and  Testimony. 

It  is  granted,  however,  that,  though  these  considerations  require  an 
ecclesiastical  judicatory  to  be  peculiarly  cautious  of  altering  public 
deeds  asserting  the  truths  of  God  in  opposition  to  error ;  yet  there 
may  be  cases  in  which  it  is  proper  for  a  judicatory  to  use  this  freedom 
with  its  own  deeds,  particularly,  when  it  appears  to  the  judicatory, 
that  an  expression  in  any  of  their  deeds  is  liable  to  dangerous  mis- 
construction ;  and  that  an  amendment  proposed  is  consistent  with 
the  explicit  and  faithful  assertion  of  the  truth.     But  the  following 


APPENDIX.  491 

expression  in  the  15th  section  of  the  first  part  of  the  said  Testimony, 
to  wit,  "  His  whole  duty,  as  a  magistrate,  respects  men,  not  as  chris- 
tians, but  as  members  of  civil  society,''  is  not  liable  to  such  miscon- 
struction, but  seems  necessary  from  such  considerations  as  the  fol- 
lowing : 

1.  To  say,  that  the  whole  duty  of  the  magistrate,  as  such,  respects  men,  not  as 
christians,  but  as  members  of  civil  society,  is  to  say  no  more  than  that  he  is  an 
oflacer  not  of  the  church,  but  of  civil  society.  Tor  it  is  obvious,  that  the  duty  of 
a  person  considered  as  an  officer  of  any  body  of  men,  considered,  for  example,  as 
the  colonel  or  physician  of  a  regiment,  is  that  which  respects  the  members  of  that 
body,  and  not  those  of  any  other. 

2.  The  contrary  opinion,  namely,  that  the  duty  of  the  magistrate  respects  men 
as  christians,  tends  to  confound  his  opinion  with  that  of  the  gospel  minister. 
These  two  officers  are  distinguished  from  one  another  in  respect  of  their  imme- 
diate end ;  that  of  the  magistrate  being  the  promotion  of  men's  welfare  in  their 
secular  concerns,  and  that  of  the  go.^pel  minister  being  the  promotion  of  their 
spiritual  interests  or  of  what  belongs  to  their  everlasting  salvation.  But  to  sup- 
pose, that  the  dutv  of  the  magistrate,  as  such,  respects  men  as  christians,  is  to 
overthrow  this  dis'tinction.  For  if  the  duty  of  the  magistrate,  as  such,  respects 
men  as  christians,  it  must  have  the  promotion  of  their  spiritual  interests  or  their 
eternal  salvation  for  its  immediate  end  ;  that  is,  it  must  have  the  same  immediate 
end  with  the  duty  of  the  gospel  minister,  as  such.  Again,  to  suppose  that  the 
duty  of  the  magistrate,  as  such,  respects  men  as  christians,  would  overthrow  an- 
other great  distinction  between  the  magistrate,  as  such,  and  the  gospel  minister, 
namely,  that  they  are  officers  of  different  kingdoms.  The  duty  of  the  magistrate, 
as  such,  is  the  duty  of  ruling  those  to  whom  he  stands  related  as  a  magistrate; 
and  therefore  if  his  duty  respected  men  as  christians,  it  would  be  his  duty  to  rule 
them  as  christians,  or  as  the  church  of  Christ.  Then  this  absurdity  would  neces- 
sarily follow,  that  the  civil  magistrate  should  exercise  his  carnal  weapons,  (for 
he  has  no  other,)  as  well  as  ministers  and  elders  their  spiritual  censures,  in  the 

fovernment  of  the  church.  But  the  magistrate,  as  such,  is  not  an  officer  in  the 
ingdom  of  Christ.  To  ministers  and  elders,  and  not  to  him,  has  Christ  commit- 
ted the  keys  of  government  in  his  kingdom,  which  is  not  of  this  world.  It  is, 
then,  a  great  distinction  between  the  magistrate,  as  such,  and  the  gospel  minister, 
that  the  duty  of  the  former  respects  men  as  members  of  civil  society,  whilst  that 
of  the  latter  respects  them  as  christians. 

3.  If  the  duty  of  the  civil  magistrate,  as  such,  respects  men  as  christians  ;  then 
he  may  punish  heretics  and  schismatics  as  such.  For  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the 
magistrate  has  a  right  to  judge  men  authoritatively,  in  the  character  in  which 
they  are  formally  and  directly  the  object  of  his  official  duty,  and  to  deal  with  them 
according  to  his  judgment.  And  therefore,  if  the  duty  of  the  magistrate,  as  such, 
respects  men  as  christians,  that  is,  if  they  are  formally  and  directly  in  that  charac- 
ter objects  of  his  official  duty,  then  he  has  a  right  to  judge  authoritatiTely, 
whether  they  be  heretics  and  schismatics,  or  not;  and  having  judged  them  to  be 
such,  he  has  a  right  to  punish  them  as  bad  christians.  Thus  the  opposition,  that 
the  duty  of  the  magistrate,  as  such,  or  as  armed  with  fines,  prisons,  gibbets,  res- 
pects men  as  christians,  will  justify  the  magistrate's  bloody  persecution  of  here- 
tics and  teachers  of  error,  or  of  those  whom  he  takes  to  be  such.  For  with  regard 
to  intrinsic  demerit,  wrongs  done  to  the  church  of  God  are  more  criminal  than 
wrongs  done  to  civil  society ;  the  murder  of  the  soul  deserves  heavier  punishment 
than  that  of  the  body. 

4.  This  position,  that  "the  whole  duty  of  the  magistrate,  as  such,  respects  men, 
not  as  christians  but  as  members  of  civil  societv"  is  agreeable  to  the  doctrine 
taught  in  the  Declaration  and  Defence  of  the  Associate  Presbytery's  principles 
concerning  the  present  civil  government  in  Britain.  To  this  purpose  are  the  fol- 
lowing words  of  that  Declaration.  "  The  public  good  of  outward  and  common 
order  in  all  reasonable  society  unto  the  glory  of  God  is  the  great  and  only  end 
which  those  invested  with  magistracy  can  propose  in  a  sole  respect  unto  that  of- 
fice." Here  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  the  public  good  of  outward  and  common 
order  in  all  reasonable  society  is  no  other  than  the  good  of  civil  society  ;  for 
though  it  comprehends  the  good  of  such  order  in  particular  religions,  as  well  as 
other  societies ;  still,  the  object  of  the  magistrate's  office  is  not  the  good  of  any 


492  ALEXANDER  AND  EUFUS. 

society  as  a  religions,  spiritual  and  snperoatnral  society,  but  the  good  of  the  out- 
ward order  common  to  it  with  other  reasonable  societies.  And  as  this  public 
good  of  outward  and  common  order  is  the  only  end,  which  the  magistrate,  as 
such,  or  in  a  sole  respect  to  his  oflSce,  can  propose:  so  the  whole  dnty  of  the 
magistrate,  as  such,  which  can  be, no  other  than  what  is  referred  to  that  end,  and 
which  has  nothing  in  it  peculiar  to  christians,  must  respect  men  not  peculiarly  as 
christians,  but  generally  as  meml-ers  of  civil  society. 

The  Associate  Presbytery  adds  in  the  same  place  the  following 
words  :  "  And  as  in  prosecuting  this  end  civilly  according  to  their 
office,  it  is  only  over  men's  good  and  evil  works,  that  magistrates  can 
have  any  inspection  ;  so  it  is  only  those  which  they  must  needs  take 
cognizance  of  for  the  said  public  good.''  The  duty  of  the  civil 
magistrate,  as  such,  is  here  plainly  limited  to  such  works  as  it  is  in- 
dispensably necessary  for  him  to  take  cognizance  of  for  the  good 
of  outward  and  common  order  in  civil  society.  These  are  the 
works  of  men,  considered  not  as  christians,  but  as  members  of  civil 
society. 

The  Associate  Presbytery  say  further  concerning  the  duty  of  mag- 
istrates :  '"  As  the  whole  institution  and  end  of  their  office  are  cut  out 
by,  and  lie  within  the  compass  of  natural  principles  ;  it  were  absurd 
to  suppose,  that  there  could  or  ought  to  be  any  exercise  thereof  to- 
wards its  end,  but  what  can  be  argued  for  and  defended  from  natural 
principles."  It  is  plain,  that  the  duty,  which  respects  christians,  as 
such,  is  peculiar  to  those  who  enjoy  the  benefit  of  the  supernatural 
revelation,  of  the  christian  religion  ;  and  that  it  cannot  be  rightly 
argued  for  or  defended  on  any  other  principles  than  those  of  that 
revelation.  We  can  neither  know  nor  do  our  duty  to  a  christian  as 
such,  unless  we  know  what  a  christian  is  ;  and  we  cannot  know  what 
a  christian  is,  without  the  knowledge  of  revealed  religion.  Hence, 
it  is  evident,  that  the  duty  of  the  magistrate,  as  such,  being  no  other 
than  what  can  be  argued  for  and  defended  from  natural  principles, 
is  such  as  respects  men,  not  as  christians,  but  as  members  of  civil 
society. 

What  is  stated  in  the  words  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  now  quo- 
ted, as  a  judicious  writer  observes,  is  the  very  hinge  on  which  the  con- 
troversy with  the  anti-government  people  turns. 

But  though  the  office  and  duty  of  magistrates,  as  such,  does  not 
respect  men  as  christians,  it  does  not  follow,  that  there  are  no  impor- 
tant duties  incumbent  on  him  with  regard  to  religion  and  the  profes- 
sors of  it.  A  physician  owes  many  indispensable  duties  to  men  as 
christians,  or  as  members  of  civil  society,  though  his  duty  as  a  physi- 
cian respects  them  only  as  laboring  under,  or  as  liable  to  bodily  dis- 
eases. So  a  magistrate  ought  to  be  himself  a  christian,  and  ought 
to  lay  out  himself  zealously  for  the  advancement  of  the  christian  reli- 
gion ;  though  his  duty  as  a  magistrate  respects  men,  not  as  christians, 
but  as  members  of  civil  society. 

"See  Mr.  Morison's  Present  Duty,  page  343. 


APPENDIX.  493 

1.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  magistrate,  as  such,  to  punish  vice  as  contrary  to  the 
peace  and  order  of  civil  society.  The  vices  which  he  is  bound  to  punish  in  this 
view  are  breaches  not  only  of  the  second,  but  of  the  first  table  of  the  moral  law; 
such  as,  the  open  contempt  of  the  great  truths  of  natural  religion ;  the  profana- 
tion of  God's  name,  by  swearing  in  common  conversation  ;  perjury  ;  the  profane 
and  contemptuous  disturbance  of  public  worship ;  the  open  breaches  of  the  sab- 
bath considered  as  a  reasonable  portion  of  time  set  apart  for  the  worship  of  God ; 
and  in  general  all  open  contempt  of  the  government  of  God,  which  lies  at  the  root 
of  all  moral  obligation,  and  of  all  confidence  in  human  society.  The  due  restraint 
and  punishment  of  these  evils  by  the  civil  magistrate  are  necessary  for  preserving 
the  external  peace  and  order  of  society  ;  and  at  the  same  time  subservient  to  the 
profession  and  practice  of  the  christian  religion. 

2.  The  civil  magistrate,  as  such,  ought  to  defend  the  church  as  a  reasonable  so- 
ciety against  all  such  as  attempt  to  take  away  or  infringe  the  liberty  of  her  mem- 
bers in  professing  and  propagating  the  christian  religion.  To  this  purpose  was 
the  proclamation  of  Cyrus  with  regard  to  the  building  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem. 
In  this  view,  the  laws  of  the  civil  state  which  were  made  in  Scotland  in  the  year 
1560,  and  afterwards  in  the  period  between  1638  and  1649,  in  favor  of  the  true  re- 
formed religion,  may  well  be  considered  as  belonging  to  the  work  of  God  which 
was  then  carried  on — so  far  as  these  laws  were  for  giving  protection  and  security 
to  the  subjects  in  the  profession  of  that  religion,  without  prejudice  to  others 
in  their  civil  rights.  But  in  these  laws,  those  who  constituted  the  Reformed 
church,  were  not  considered  spiritually  as  christians,  but  rather  civilly,  as  pecu- 
liarly valuable  members  of  civil  society.  As  a  christian  and  member  of  the  best 
reformed  church,  the  magistrate  ought  to  know,  that  the  religion  of  Protestants 
is  better  than  that  of  Papists  ;  that^the  principles  of  the  Protestant  religion  are 
maintained  more  purely  by  Presbyterians,  than  by  Episcopalians,  Baptists,  Meth- 
odists, and  others ;  and  that  as  the  purest  form  of  religion  is  most  conducive  to 
true  godliness,  so  it  is  most  beneficial  to  civil  society.  According  to  this  knowl- 
edge which  he  possesses  as  a  christian,  he  ought  to  proceed,  as  a  magistrate,  iu 
granting  those  v/ho  belong  to  the  purest  churcii  such  distinguishing  favors  as  are 
optional  and  arbitrary  to  him ;  such  as  that  of  employing  the  members  of  the 
purest  church  in  places  of  public  trust ;  or  any  other  privilege  that  he  can  confer 
on  them  as  most  esteemed  members  of  civil  society,  without  prejudice  to  the 
natural  rights,  the  liberty  and  property  of  Qthers.  In  this  matter,  the  church  is 
considered  as  a  reasonable  society  comprehended  in  the  general  society  of  the 
nation  or  commonwealth  ;  and  the  purest  particular  church  is  most  favored  as  be- 
ing a  reasonable  society,  whose  principles  are  such  as  have  the  happiest  influence 
on  the  welfare  of  the  whole  nation. 

3.  The  civil  magistrate,  as  such,  ought  to  abolish  all  such  laws  and  customs  in 
the  civil  state  as  cannot  be  defended  by  any  natural  principles  of  reason.  The 
civil  state  ought  to  annul  the  laws  that  give  the  magistrate  a  power  of  dictating 
to  the  church,  which  is  a  spiritual  or  supernatural  society,  what  she  is  to  receive 
as  the  matter  of  her  faith  or  the  form  of  her  worship  ;  or  a  power  of  interfering  in 
her  discipline  or  government ;  and  also  to  abolish  such  superstitious  customs,  as 
that  of  putting  a  stop  to  the  public  business,  on  account  of  certain  holy  days,  the 
periodical  observation  of  which  has  no  warrant  from  natural  or  revealed  religion ; 
or  that  of  swearing  by  laying  the  hand  upon  and  kissing  the  gospels.  Much  was 
done  in  removing  such  evils  by  the  civil  powers  of  England  and  Scotland,  both  in 
the  reformation  from  popery  iu  the  sixteenth  century,  and  in  the  reformation  from 
prelacy  between  1638  and  1649. 

4.  The  civil  magistrate,  set  up  by  a  people,  who  generally  profess  the  christian 
religion,  ought  to  be  a  christian ;  and  to  exercise  his  office  in  subserviency  to  the 
interests  of  Christ  in  his  church.  It  is  true,  that  civil  qualifications  alone  consti- 
tute the  being  of  the  magistrate  as  such;  and  entitle  him  to  the  obedience  of  the 
people  in  his  lawful  commands,  not  only  for  wrath,  but  also  for  conscience  sake. 
But,  in  order  to  the  well-being  of  the  magistrate,  it  is  necessary,  that  he  be  a  sin- 
cere christian.  A  christian  is  under  greater  ties,  and  has  more  powerful  motives 
to  be  fliithful  in  performing  the  duties  of  his  station,  than  any  other ;  and  we  have 
seen,  that  there  are  many  duties  incumbent  on  the  magistrate  as  such,  the  faithful 
dischai'ge  of  which  would  be  eminently  beneficial  and  encouraging  to  the  church 
of  Christ.  But,  besides  what  he  may  do  by  the  discharge  of  the  duties  which  ne- 
cessarily belong  to  his  office,  being  himself  a  christian,  and  a  faithful  member  of 
the  church,  he  may  greatly  promote  her  interests  by  his  pious  example,  and  by 


494  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

his  improvino;  every  opportunity,  which  his  high  station  gives  him,  of  encoura- 
ging his  people  to  steadfastness  in  adhering  to  all  the  truths  and  ordinances  of  the 
Lord  Christ.  He  might  be  often  saying  to  a  minister,  what  the  apostle  bids  the 
Colossians  say  to  Archippus,  "  Take  heed  to  the  ministry,  which  thou  hast  re- 
ceived of  the  Lord,  that  thou  fulfil  it." 

NO.  2,  OF  CHRIST'S  MEDIATORY  KINGDOM. 
Some  suppose,  that  all  outward  things  in  the  kingdom  of  nature 
and  providence,  even  considered  in  their  material  being  as  obvious  to 
our  external  senses,  and  considered  in  their  natural  ordering  to  their 
natural  ends,  are  now  transferred  to  the  mediatory  kingdom  of  Christ, 
upon  a  new  right  of  donation  and  purchase.  Whence,  indeed,  it 
would  follow,  that  the  common  enjoyment  of  all  outward  things,  by 
all  unbelievers  through  the  world,  as  well  as  by  all  believers,  by  beasts 
as  well  as  men,  must  be  properly  through  Christ  as  Mediator,  and 
through  the  channel  of  his  blood.  On  this  subject  the  following  ob- 
servations are  offered  : 

1.  All  Divine  prerogatives  and  administrations  are  to  be  ascribed  to  him,  %oho  is 
our  glorious  Mediator  ;  though  they  must  not  all  be  ascribed  to  him  as  Mediator. 
Our  Lord  Jesus,  considered  as  God",  and  considered  as  Mediator,  is  one  and  the 
same  person  ;  and  therefore,  when  we  ascribe  some  things  to  him  as  God,  and 
other  things  to  him  as  Mediator :  we  do  not  ascribe  different  things  to  difierent 
persons,  but  all  to  one  and  the  same  glorious  person. 

2.  The  confounding  of  our  Lord's  Divine  and  essential  glory  with  his  mediatory 
and  acquired  glory,  must  be  a  detracting  from  his  Godhead.  For  to  suppose,  that 
all  the  glory,  or  glorious  characters  and  administrations,  ascribed  to  him  in  scrip- 
ture, are  to  be  understood  of  him  as  Mediator,  would  be  to  deny  his  Godhead,  It 
would  be  to  suppose,  that  his  Godhead  is  absorbed  in  the  glory  of  his  mediatory 
character;  as  the  Eutychians  of  old,  pretended  to  magnify  the  Mediator's  glory, 
by  supposing,  that  his  human  nature  .is  absorbed  in  the  glory  of  his  Divine  na- 
ture. 

To  suppose  that  his  common  providence  by  which,  as  God,  he  governs  all  his 
creatures,  and  orders  all  natural  things  in  their  natural  course  to  their  natural 
ends,  is  now  transferred  to  his  mediatory  character  and  kingdom,  is  to  suppose 
that  a  Divine  dominion  over  the  creatures,  which  is  inseparable  from  his  Godhead, 
is  laid  aside,  forgiving  place  to  a  mediatory  dominion ;  a  supposition  which  would 
be  a  material  denying  or  degrading  of  his  "Godhead. 

The  same  administrations,  materially  considered,  are  in  different  respects,  to  be 
ascribed  to  Christ,  both  as  God,  and  as"  Mediator.  For  each  of  his  administrations, 
as  it  supposes  or  implies  a  satisfaction  to  law  and  justice,  must  be  ascribed  to  him 
as  Mediator:  but  the  same  administration,  considered  in  another  respect,  must 
be  ascribed  to  him  as  God.  Thus,  the  judgment  of  the  ungodly,  considered  as  it 
terminates  in  their  perdition,  belongs  to  him  as  God.  But  the  same  judgment, 
as  it  terminates  in  the  vindication  of  the  glory  of  his  despised  grace,  in  the  dis- 
play of  his  glory  as  Godman,  or  in  the  greater  triumph  of  his  people,  belongs  to 
him  as  Mediator. 

3.  The  mediatory  kingdom  of  our  Lord  Jesus  is  not  o/this  world  in  any  respect. 
Though  his  mediatory  kingdom  is  in  this  world,  and  the  things  of  it  are  things  in 
this  world ;  yet  no  outward  things  whatsoever,  considered  as  things  o/this  world 
or  worldly  things,  can  be  justly  looked  upon  as  belonging  to  his  mediatory  king- 
dom, or  as  belonging  to  him  upon  a  right  of  donation  and  purchase,  no  such  do- 
nation of  purchase  being  either  needful  or  competent  to  him,  who  is  over  all  God 
blessed  forever.  But  the  gracious  and  supernatural  ordering  of  outward  material 
things,  unto  gracious  and  supernatural  ends,  in  the  channel  of  love  and  favor  to 
his  people,  and  in  subserviency  to  the  purposes  and  glory  of  free  grace  in  their 
salvation  ;  all  such  ordering  of  these  things,  or  these  things  considered  as  coming 
through  the  channel  of  such  gracious  ordering,  are  not  of  this  world,  though  in 
it.  And  thus,  "  the  providence  of  God,  after  a  most  special  manner,  taketh  care 
of  his  church,  and  disposeth  all  things  to  the  good  thereof."* 

*  ConfeBsion  of  Faith,  chap.  v.  §  7. 


APPENDIX.  495 

4.  There  can  be  no  proper  enjoyment  of  any  benefits  from  Christ  as  benefits  of 
his  mediatory  kingdom,  but  in  a  way  of  fellowship  with  him  by  faith.  Thus  no 
common  material  benefits,  as  enjoyed  by  wicked  men  or  unbelievers,  can  be  con- 
sidered as  benefits  of  his  Mediatory  kingdom,  or  as  fruits  of  his  purchase.  These 
material  benefits,  in  the  most  general  consideration  thereof,  proceed  from  God  as 
the  Creator  and  Preserver  of  the  world ;  in  which  respect,  they  are  common  to 
men  and  beasts.  But  more  particularly,  they  always  come  to  men  in  some  cove- 
nant channel.  They  come  to  wicked  men,  or  unbelievers,  through  the  broken 
covenant,  in  the  channel  of  its  curse.  And  so,  whatever  material  goodness  is  in 
these  things  to  them  suited  to  their  fleshly  nature,  like  the  goodness  thereof  to 
the  beasts  ;  yet  there  is  no  spiritual  goodness  attending  them,  no  Divine  love  but 
wrath.  On  the  other  hand,  these  benefits  come  to  believers  through  the  covenant 
of  grace,  in  the  channel  of  its  blessing.  And  so  they  enjoy  these  benefits,  in  a 
way  of  communion  with  Christ,  as  benefits  of  his  Mediatory  kingdom. 

5.  The  only  things  that  can  be  properly  reckoned  the  purchase  of  Christ,  or 
the  proper  fruits  of  his  death,  are  such  things  as  the  vindictive  justice  of  God 
could  not  admit  of  without  a  satisfaction.  Such  is  the  venting  of  the  love  of  God 
to  sinners,  by  receiving  into  a  state  of  pardon  or  favor.  Such  are  all  the  parts  of 
their  salvation,  with  the  glory  of  Christ  and  of  free  grace  thereby.  But  vindictive 
justice  could  require  or  admit  of  no  satisfaction,  in  order  to  the  preserving  of  the 
natural  world  in  its  natural  course,  after  the  fall :  for  that  very  justice,  in  the  curse 
of  the  broken  covenant,  necessarily  required  the  preservation  of  the  world,  for 
the  seed  that  had  sinned  and  fallen  in  their  first  covenant  head.  In  a  word,  all 
doctrine  about  the  shedding  of  Christ's  blood  for  any  of  these  things,  in  order  to 
which  vindictive  justice  did  and  could  not  admit  of  a  satisfaction,  is  at  best  but 
a  doctrine  about  the  shedding  of  his  blood  in  vain,  and  injurious  to  the  glory 
of  that  mystery.  See  Mr.  Gib's  Display  of  the  Secession  Testimony,  pages  300, 
801,  303. 

NO.  3.    ON  THE  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  COVENANTS,  WHICH  THE  PEO- 
PLE OF  ANY  NATION  HAVE  ENTERED  INTO  FOR  RELIGION 
AND  REFORMATION. 

It  is  sometimes  asked,  how  a  nation  can  be  under  the  obligation  of 
a  covenant  which  is  entered  into  by  the  church  only  ?  It  is  answered, 
that  when  the  members  of  a  particular  church  constitute  what  is  con- 
sidered as  a  nation  or  civil  state  ;  they  ought  to  devote  that  nation  to 
the  Lord  ;  binding  the  nation  and  all  the  citizens  belonging  to  it  to 
be  his  people,  and  to  profess  and  maintain  his  truths  and  ordinances 
in  purity.  If  it  be  said,  that  they  may  as  well  devote  any  other  na- 
tion to  the  Lord  :  it  may  be  answered,  no  ;  because  what  they  devote 
to  the  Lord  ought  to  be  their  own.  As  civil  relations,  such  as,  hus- 
band and  wife,  master  and  servant,  as  magistrate  and  subject,  are  ac- 
knowledged in  the  church  on  account  of  the  various  duties  they  owe 
to  God  and  to  one  another.  So  people  may  be  acknowledged  in  the 
church  as  constituting  a  family,  a  commonwealth  or  nation  ;  and 
therefore  they  may  devote  themselves  considered  in  that  capacity  to 
the  Lord,  and  engage  to  walk  in  all  his  commandments  and  ordi- 
nances. But  it  is  urged,  that  though  the  individuals  that  actually 
come  under  such  an  engagement  are  bound  by  it ;  how  does  it  ap- 
pear that  other  persons  belonging  to  the  nation,  are  under  the  same 
obligation  : — it  is  answered,  that  these  other  persons  are  represented 
by  the  majority,  or  by  those  who  are  considered  as  representing  the 
nation.  This  was  the  case  with  the  people  of  Israel,  Deut.  xxix  14, 
15,  "Neither  with  you  only  do  I  make  this  covenant  and  this  oath  ; 


496  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

but  with  him  that  standeth  here  with  us  this  day  before  the  Lord  our 
God  :  and  also,  with  him  that  is  not  with  us  this  day."  Np  words 
could  have  been  more  proper  to  show,  that  when  the  Israelites  en- 
tered into  a  covenant  with  the  Lord  their  God,  they  did  so  as  a  na- 
tion ;  so  that  every  Israelite  was  bound  by  it,  whether  he  was,  or  was 
not,  present  at  the  transaction.  In  short,  the  nation  is  sufficiently 
represented  in  public  covenanting,  if  there  be  a  majority  or  some  of  all 
ranks,  as  in  Nehemiah's  time,  when  the  princes,  the  priests,  the  Le- 
vites,  the  porters,  the  singers,  every  one  having  knowledge  and  hav- 
ing understanding,  subscribed  the  covenant;  if  there  be  such  a  con- 
currence of  high  and  low,  of  rich  and  poor,  as  would  be  deemed  suffi- 
cient in  other  instances,  to  constitute  a  lawful  national  deed,  or  some- 
thing done  by  the  consent  of  the  nation.  It  may  be  said,  that  though 
such  representation  might  have  place  in  the  Jewish  Theocracy,  it  does 
not  follow  that  it  is  warrantable  in  the  christian  church  ?  But  it  is 
answered,  such  representation  is  common  to  all  societies.  For  when 
we  speak  of  the  act  of  any  society,  we  do  not  always  mean,  that  all 
the  individuals  belonging  to  the  society,  or  even  three  fourths  of  them 
had  ability,  inclination  or  opportunity  for  joining  in  that  act.  In  the 
church,  for  example,  when  a  minister  is  called  to  be  the  pastor  of  any 
particular  congregation,  it  is  only  a  part  of  the  members  that  give 
their  votes.  The  common  order  of  the  society  requires  that  part  to 
be  the  majority.  The  consequence  is,  that  the  candidate  is  declared 
to  be  duly  elected  ;  the  act  of  those  individuals  who  gave  their  voices 
for  him  is  considered  as  the  act  of  the  whole  congregation;  and 
accordingly,  the  whole  congregation  is  under  the  same  obliga- 
tion to  regard  him  as  their  pastor,  with  the  said  individuals.  Thus, 
it  is  evident,  that  the  representation  of  the  Israelites  in  their  public 
covenanting,  was  no  peculiarity  of  their  church  or  nation.  If  it  be 
asked,  How  it  appears,  that  the  posterity  of  the  church  or  nation, 
that  have  entered  into  such  a  covenant  engagement,  continue  under 
the  obligation  of  it  ?  It  is  answered,  that  it  appears  from  the  text 
just  now  cited  in  Deut.  xxix.  13,  14,  that  the  covenant  which  was 
made  with  Israel  in  the  plains  of  Moab,  was  made  not  only  with  the 
Israelites  then  present,  but  also,  with  their  posterity  :  for  not  only  the 
existing  members  of  Israel  that  were  absent,  but  also,  posterity  were 
meant  by  "  him  that  was  not  with  them  on  that  day.''  In  Jeremiah's 
time,  the  Jews  were  considered  as  under  the  engagements  which  were 
entered  into  in  the  time  of  Moses.  Jerem.  ii.  20,  "  Of  old  time,  thou 
saidst,  I  will  not  transgress. "  Nor  is  it  any  Jewish  peculiarity,  for 
posterity  to  be  under  the  obligation  of  the  engagements  entered  into 
by  their  ancestors.  This  is  the  case  with  posterity  in  every  society 
while  it  subsists.  The  individuals  of  which  a  society  is  composed,  are 
continually  changing  ;  so  that  if  it  were  to  be  considered  as  the  same 
society  no  longer  than  while  these  continued  the  same,  it  would  follow, 
from  the  births,  the  deaths  and  emigrations  which  daily  take  place, 


APPENDIX.  497 

that  the  society  would  be  so  transient,  that  no  engagement  would 
bind  it  for  a  month,  for  a  week,  or  even  for  one  day.  But  the  truth 
is,  while  the  succession  of  members  goes  on  under  the  same  denomi- 
nation, the  society  continues  under  the  obligation  of  its  engagements, 
in  the  same  manner  as  an  individual.  Hence,  it  is  never  objected  to 
the  obligation  of  any  law,  or  of  any  treaty  with  a  neighboring  state, 
that  it  was  made  before  an  individual  of  the  present  age  was  born. 
If  it  be  asked.  How  can  all  the  members  of  a  nation  or  civil  state  be 
brought  under  the  obligation  of  a  covenant  engagement  to  the  pro- 
fession of  any  particular  religion  ?  It  is  answered,  that  when  persons 
are  under  the  primary  obligation  of  the  Divine  law,  to  the  profession 
of  Divine  truth,  or  to  the  practice  of  duty,  they  may  be  also  justly 
under  the  secondary  obligation  of  a  covenant  engagement  to  the  same 
profession  and  practice.  In  this  there  is  nothing  unreasonable.  But 
some  suppose,  that  this  covenant  obligation  would  lead  magistrates  to 
enforce  it  by  civil  penalties,  and  to  persecute  for  errors  in  religion  : 
— But  it  is  answered,  that  this  does  not  follow,  because  the  seconda- 
ry obligation  of  such  engagements  is  regulated  by  the  primary  obliga- 
tion of  the  law,  which  forbids  rulers  to  meddle  with  what  does  not  be- 
long to  their  office.  If  it  be  insisted,  that  what  persons  are  bound  to 
by  such  covenants,  may  not  be  truths,  but  errors  : — We  still  answer, 
that  according  to  the  supposition,  we  are  bound  to  nothing  by  the 
secondary  obligation,  but  what  we  are  bound  to  by  the  primary. 
Hence,  even  the  secondary  obligation,  while  the  matter  of  it  is  no 
other  than  what  is  found  in  the  holy  scriptures,  may  be  called  the  ob- 
ligation of  the  Lord's  covenant. 

How  tremendous  are  the  judgments  of  God,  impending  over  a  na- 
tion which  is  openly  trampling  upon  the  covenant  engagements  that 
have  been  entered  into  by  that  nation  for  religion  and  reformation  ! 
The  league  which  the  princess  of  Israel  made  with  the  Gibeonites,  was 
binding  on  the  nation  of  Israel;  and  on  account  of  SauPs  breach  of 
it,  four  hundred  years  afterward,  the  whole  land  was  punished  with 
famine  three  years,  2  Sam.  xxi.  1 — 9.  And  will  not  a  people,  that 
obstinately  persist  in  the  avowed  violation  of  covenant  engagements 
which  they  have  come  under,  not  about  secular  concerns,  but  about 
the  truths  and  ordinances  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  bring  desolating 
judgments  upon  themselves  ?  Will  not  God  bring  a  sword  upon  them, 
that  shall  avenge  the  quarrel  of  his  covenant  ?  Levit.  xxvi.  25.  We 
have  reason  to  believe,  that  God,  in  his  holy  Providence,  will  order 
his  judgments  upon  a  nation  that  persists  obstinately  in  covenant  vi- 
olation, in  such  a  manner,  as  will  make  that  sin  appear  to  be  the  prin- 
cipal cause  of  these  judgments,  to  the  conviction  of  the  surrounding 
nations.  He  declares,  that  this  should  be  the  case  with  the  perfidy  of 
Israel,  Dent.  xxix.  24,  25— Jerem.  xxii.  8,  9.  Impressions  of  the  ap- 
proach of  public  calamity  in  Britain  and  Ireland,  on  account  of  cov- 
enant violation,  were  common  among  Presbyterian  ministers  and  peo- 
u2 


498  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

pie  there,  especially  among  those  of  the  Secession  in  the  last  century  ; 
such  impressions  as  the  judicious  Mr.  Boston  expresses  in  the  following 
words. 

"  The  avowed  breach  of  covenants  made  with  God  for  reformation;  the  blood 
of  the  Lord's  people  shed  in  fields  and  scafi'olds,  for  adhering  to  the  oath  of  God  ; 
the  fining,  confining,  imprisoning,  banishing,  and  other  barbarous  usage  of 
them ;  whereby,  for  many  years,  these  nations  carried  on  a  war  with  Heaven : 
These  are  an  old  debt  lying  on  the  head  of  Scotland,  England  and  Ireland  ;  for 
which  God  will  pursue  them  ;  and  pursue  them  so,  that  it  will  appear  to  be  both 
for  principal  and  interest,  during  the  time  it  has  lain  over.  These  things  are  for- 
o-otten  or  laughed  at  now,  as  what  we  have  no  concern  in  ;  a  stone  is  rolled  to  the 
mouth  of  the  sepulchre,  where  they  are  supposed  to  be  buried.  But  God  will 
readily  arise,  if  the  stone  were  sealed,  and  they  forgotten  quite  and  clean,  1  Thes- 
sal,  V.  3,  '  For  when  they  shall  say  peace  and  safety,  then  sudden  destruction 
oometh  upon  them  as  travail  upon  a  woman  with  child  ;  and  they  shall  not 
escape.' " 

To  the  same  purpose  speaks  the  Solemn  Warning  published  by  the 
Associate  Synod  in  the  year  1T58.  Having  taken  notice  of  the  Lord's 
threatening  against  Zedekiah  for  breaking  his  oath  to  the  king  of 
Babylon,  and  of  the  punishment  of  Israel  for  the  breach  of  their 
oath  to  the  Gibeonites,  the  Synod  proceeds  in  the  following  words  : 

"  If  the  Lord  takes  such  account  of  a  vow,  even  in  things  inditferent ;  if  he 
claims  such  interest  in  an  oath  sworn,  though  not  unto  him  ;  if  he  so  punished 
the  breach  of  oaths  sworn  by  his  name,  even  when  they  were  sworn  to  another 
party,  about  secular  affairs  ;  and  so  punished  the  same  in  remote  posterity ;  shall 
we  suppose,  that  he  will  not  avenge  our  horrid  violation  of  those  solemn  oaths, 
which  we  came  under  in  the  loins  of  our  fathers ;  oaths,  which  were  sworn  to 
Him  as  the  great  Part}',  in  matters  of  highest  and  most  indispensable  duty  ?  No  ; 
he  has  given  assurance  of  the  contrary.  He  hath  denounced  concerning  such  a 
generation  of  covenant-breakers,  '  I  will  break  the  pride  of  your  power .,  and  I 
will  bring  a  sword  upon  you,  that  shall  avenge  the  quarrel  of  m}'  covenant.'  " 

NO.  4.  OF  THE  SOLEMN  LEAGUE  AND  COVENANT. 
It  has  been  said,  though  the  Scots  were  bound  by  ev-ery  motive  of 
sound  policy  and  regard  to  self-preservation  to  make  common  cause 
with  the  English  Parliament ;  yet  they  erred  in  requiring  religious 
uniformity  as  the  condition  of  military  assistance.  But  it  may  be  an- 
swered, that  it  was  the  duty  of  the  Scots  to  use  all  their  influence  for 
bringing  about  the  reformation  of  England.  And  if  the  English  had 
treated  their  admonitions  on  this  subject  with  open  contempt,  the 
Scots  might  justly  have  refused  to  enter  into  a  civil  league  with  them. 
For  nothing  would  have  been  more  contrary  to  the  duty  and  the  true 
interest  of  the  Scots,  than  their  entering  into  such  a  league  with  the 
avowed  enemies  of  the  covenanted  reformation  in  which  they  were 
then  engaged.  Besides  the  declared  design  of  the  war  which  Charles 
the  first  was  now  carrying  on  against  the  parliament  was,  that  he 
might  have  it  in  his  power  to  subject  his  people  to  the  yoke  of  pre- 
latical  government  and  superstitious  ceremonies.  Thus,  it  was  in  a 
great  measure  a  religious  war.  And  it  could  not  reasonably  be  ex- 
pected that  the  Scots  would  assist  in  such  a  war  those  who  refused 
to  enter  into  covenant  for  the  reformation  of  religion  ;  or  in  other 
words,  w^ith  those  who  refused  to  give  a  proper  evidence  of  their  ad- 
herence to  the  true  religion. 


APPENDIX.  499 

It  is  further  said,  tliat  the  Solemn  League  was  ambiguous.  That 
Henry  Yane  imposed  on  the  Scots  by  suggesting  the  clause  *'  accord- 
ing to  the  word  of  God  and  the  example  of  the  best  reformed  churches." 
Some  Independents  avowed,  after  they  had  taken  the  covenant,  that, 
in  taking  it,  they  had  an  eye  to  the  Independent  church  of  New  Eng« 
land  ;  and  some  understood  the  prelacy  abjured  in  the  Solemn  Lea- 
gue, of  prelacy  as  it  then  stood  in  England,  and  as  different  from  a 
moderate  episcopacy. 

There  are  two  rules  according  to  which  contracts  or  covenants  are 
to  be  understood.  One  is,  that  the  words  should  be  taken  in  the 
sense  which  is  natural  and  unforced.  Prelacy  is  described  in  the 
Solemn  League  to  be  '*  church  government  by  archbishops,  bishops, 
their  chancellors  and  commissaries,  deans,  deons  and  chapters,  arch- 
deacons, and  all  other  ecclesiastical  officers  depending  on  that  hier- 
archy." In  these  words,  the  hierarchy  of  the  Church  of  England,  as 
it  then  stood,  was,  no  doubt,  directly  and  principally  intended.  But 
at  the  same  time  that  the  takers  of  this  covenant  swore  to  endeavor 
the  extirpation  of  })relacy,  they  also  engaged  to  endeavor  the  preser- 
vation of  the  reformed  religion  in  the  Church  of  Scotland  in  doctrine, 
worship,  discipline  and  government ;  which  was  then  Presbyterian 
in  its  greatest  purity.  So  that  all  sorts  of  primacy  or  jurisdiction  of 
one  pastor  above  another  was  hereby  abjured.  With  regard  to  the 
words,  according  to  the  example  of  the  best  Reformed  chiir dies, 
that  they  were  inserted  with  a  view  to  presbyterial  church  govern- 
ment, was  the  judgment  of  the  provincial  Synod  of  London,  a  large 
body  of  pious  a.nd|judicions  ministers,  who  had  the  best  opportunity 
of  being  acquainted  with  the  transactions  of  that  period.  '•  Though 
the  Presbyterian  government,"  say  they  in  their  excellent  vindication 
of  it  agreed  upon  by  them,  Nov.  2d.  1649,  "though  the  Presbyterian 
government,  in  the  practice  of  it,  l^e  new  and  strange  to  the  people 
of  England,  it  is  not  new  to  the  churches  of  Christ  in  other  countries. 
For  most  of  those  places,  that  did  thrust  out  the  popish  religion  and 
government,  did  receive  the  protestant  religion  and  presbyterial  gov- 
ernment. It  is  not  new  in  the  Protestant  Eeformed  churches  in 
France,  Scotland,  Netherlands,  Geneva,  and  divers  other  places,  who 
have  had  comfortable  experience  of  this  government ;  and  have  en- 
joyed a  great  deal  of  liberty,  verity,  piety,  unity  and  prosperity  under 
it.  And  (which  we  desire  all  our  respective  congregations  seriously 
to  consider)  therefore  it  is,  (as  we  humbly  conceive)  that  the  framers 
of  our  national  covemint  did  put  in  these  words,  {and  the  example 
of  the  best  Reformed  churches)  into  the  first  article  of  the  covenant, 
that  thereby  they  might  hint  to  us  what  that  government  is,  which  is 
nearest  the  Word,  even  that  which  is  now  practised  in  the  best  Re- 
formed churches." 

Another  rule  for  the  interpretation  of  such  covenants  is,  that  as  it 
is  inconsistent  with  the  sincerity  and  good  faith  whieh  are  indispeasa- 


500  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

ble  in  those  who  enter  into  a  covenant,  especially  when  it  is  a  religi- 
ous one,  for  any  of  the  parties  entering  into  it,  to  take  it  in  a  sense 
different  from  that  in  which  it  was  previously  declared  to  be  under- 
stood, agreeably  to  the  most  obviou"*  meaning  of  the  words,  by  an- 
other principal  contracting  party  ;  so  the  covenant  itself  cannot,  on 
that  account  be  justly  construed  as  bearing  such  a  different  sense.  It 
was  well  known  to  the  English,  previously  to  their  taking  of  the  So- 
lemn League,  that  by  the  church  government  most  agreeably  to  the 
Lord's  word,  the  Scots  understood  presbytery  ;  and  that  they  under- 
stood the  example  of  the  best  Reformed  churches,  just  as  the  London 
ministers  did,  in  the  above  quotation.  We  cannot  suppose,  therefore, 
that  when  the  English  entered  into  the  Solemn  League,  they  under- 
stood the  clause,  "  according  to  the  word  of  God,  and  the  example  of 
the  best  Reformed  churches,"  as  leaving  them  at  liberty  to  adopt  in- 
dependency, or  any  other  form  of  church  government  than  presby- 
tery. For,  while  they  did  not  previously  deny  that  they  understood 
the  said  clause,  as  they  knew  the  Scots  did,  their  entering  into  the 
Solemn  League  necessarily  implied  a  public  profession  of  their  be- 
ing satisfied  as  to  the  conformity  of  presbyterial  church  government 
to  the  word  of  God.  The  contrary  supposition  cannot  be  made, 
without  charging  the  English  with  an  open  violation  of  the  princi- 
ples of  honor  and  conscience.  But  neither  the  true  sense  nor  the 
necessary  obligation  of  that  covenant  would  be  affected  by  such 
wickedness.  For  God  will  not  hold  them  guiltless  who  take  his  name 
in  vain. 

The  schisms,  therefore,  and  other  public  evils,  which  followed  the 
taking  of  the  Solemn  League,  like  the  calamities  which  followed  the 
covenanting  in  the  reign  of  Josiah,  are  not  to  be  ascribed  to  that  sa- 
cred engagement,  but  to  the  insincerity  and  perfidy  of  the  people 
who  entered  into  it.  But  the  taking  of  the  Solemn  League  was  also 
attended  with  many  good  fruits  ;  such  as,  the  more  distinct  and  ac- 
curate exhibition  of  many  particulars  of  the  cause  of  God  and  truth, 
in  the  Westminster  Assembly's  Confession  of  Faith,  Larger  and 
Shorter  Catechisms,  form  of  presbyterial  church  government,  and 
directory  for  public  worship  ;  and  in  the  acts  and  proceedings  of 
the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  till  the  year 
1650.  The  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  this  period,  rendered 
the  covenanters  eminent  in  their  acquaintance  with  Divine  truth, 
and  with  the  power  of  godliness.  Many  of  them  loved  not  their 
lives  unto  death  for  the  word  of  God,  and  for  the  testimony  which 
they  held. 

It  has  been  said,  that  those  who  explain  the  term  extirpate  in  the 
Solemn  League,  as  some  sectaries  did,  as  only  describing  the  duty  of 
a  christian  in  his  private  capacity,  mistook  the  meaning  of  that  cove- 
nant ;  because  all  the  Puritans  were  for  bringing  the  bishops  very 
low,  and  there  were  then  petitions  presented  to  parliament,  that  re- 


APPENDIX.  501 

quired  the  removal  of  episcopacy  root  and  branch.  They  stated  that 
their  war  was  for  the  ends  of  the  covenant.  Some  divines  spoke  of 
the  civil  magistrate  compelling  with  the  sword. 

In  answer  to  these  things,  it  may  be  observed,  that  prelacy,  as  it 
was  by  law  established  and  supported  by  the  nation,  was  a  noxious 
incumbrance  ;  and,  in  that  view,  it  was  not  wrong  to  petition  for  its 
removal  root  and  branch :  which  indeed  was  done  afterwards  with- 
out any  persecution.  For  when  prelacy  was  abolished  by  the  parlia- 
ment, provision  was  made  for  such  ministers  as  it  was  found  neces- 
sary to  remove  from  their  charges.  Some  things  in  the  writings  of 
divines,  and  in  the  acts  of  church  courts  at  that  time,  spoke  too  much 
of  the  magistrate's  using  his  worldly  power  for  compelling  people  to 
profess  the  true  religion.  On  the  part  of  the  Presbyterian  divines, 
this  mistake  was  not  owing  to  ignorance  of  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  church  and  the  state  :  for  they  explained  that  distinction 
very  well,  in  their  disputations  against  the  Erastians.  But  the  cause 
of  their  error  seems  to  have  been,  that  they  considered  the  political 
principles,  both  of  the  Episcopalians  and  of  the  Independents,  as  ob- 
structing civil  liberty  under  a  limited  monarchy,  as  well  as  the  re- 
formation of  religion.  But  the  word  extirpate,  as  it  is  used  in  the 
Solemn  League,  is  not  to  be  determined  by  the  opinions  which  were 
then  entertained  about  the  extent  of  the  magistrate's  office,  or  even 
by  the  political  measures  that  were  taken.  There  might  have  been 
some  pretence  for  such  a  supposition,  if  the  Solemn  League  had  been 
an  official  oath  belonging  to  the  state,  and  administered  to  magis- 
trates only.  But  the  case  of  that  covenant  is  quite  different.  It  is 
a  deed  purely  ecclesiastical ;  the  administration  of  which  belonged  to 
the  office  of  the  ministers  of  the  gospel,  usually  on  the  Lord's  day  : 
and  it  was  to  be  taken  not  only  by  magistrates,  but  by  every  one 
having  knowledge  and  understanding.  And  as  to  the  word  extir- 
pate, its  connection  in  the  article  in  which  it  is  used,  as  well  as  the 
whole  scope  and  tenor  of  the  covenant,  leads  us  to  understand  it  of 
the  use  of  such  means  as  are  competent  to  church  members  as  such. 
It  is  to  be  understood  of  faith  in  the  promise  in  Matth.  xv.  13, 
*'  Every  plant,"  says  Christ,  "  which  my  heavenly  Father  hath  not 
planted,  shall  be  rooted  up  or  extirpated."  We  are  to  understand 
this  word  of  the  use  of  prayer  for  the  fulfilment  of  this  promise  in  the 
case  of  prelacy,  which  is  a  plant  which  our  heavenly  Father  hath  not 
planted.  We  are  to  understand  it  of  the  use  of  arguments,  reproofs 
and  testimonies,  as  well  as  of  the  public  censures  of  the  church.  Be- 
sides, it  is  to  be  observed,  that  the  takers  of  this  covenant  engaged 
to  endeavor  the  extirpation,  not  of  prelatists,  but  of  prelacy  ;  not 
of  the  erroneous,  but  of  their  errors.  "  Nor  is  any  man  hereby 
bound  to  offer  any  violence  to  their  persons,"  as  the  AVestminster 
Assembly  observes  in  their  exhortation  to  the  taking  of  the  cove- 
nant ;  which  exhortation  was  approved  by  both  houses  of  parlia- 


502  ALEXANDER  AND   RUFUS. 

ment.  This  observation  would  have  been  a  falsehood,  if  the  word 
extirpate  had  been  intended  to  bind  the  civil  magistrate  to  use  his 
Bword  against  Episcopalians.  See  Morison's  Present  Duty,  and  Ste- 
venson's History. 

NO.  5.  OF  THE  PUBLICATION  OF  THE  PURPOSE  OF  MARRIAGE. 

It  is  not  pretended,  that  the  publication  of  marriage,  a  competent 
time  before  the  celebration  of  it,  is  absolutely  necessary  to  the  legiti- 
macy or  validity  of  marriage.  But  it  belongs  to  the  church  of  Christ 
to  determine  what  is  regular  and  becoming  the  christian  character  in 
the  manner  of  its  celebration.  Both  the  temporal  and  spiritual  in- 
terests of  men  are  so  much  affected  by  marriage,  that  whatever  re- 
lates to  it  is  important.  Though  it  belongs  to  civil  society  ;  though 
it  is  not  a  sacrament,  nor  an  ordinance  of  the  christian  church,  as  the 
Papists  teach ;  yet  it  is  an  ordinance  of  God,  as  the  moral  Governor 
of  the  world  :  it  is  called  "his  covenant,"  Proverbs  ii.  17;  both  on 
account  of  his  institution,  and  on  account  of  the  promise  made  by 
the  parties  in  his  name.  The  watchmen,  therefore,  of  the  church, 
ought  to  give  a  certain  sound  as  to  this  matter,  and  to  declare,  whether 
it  is  not  more  eligible,  in  the  present  state  of  liuman  society,  to  con- 
tinue to  observe  the  rule  of  the  previous  publication  of  marriage,  than 
to  lay  it  aside. 

The  reasons,  why  it  appears  more  eligible  to  continue  the  observa- 
tion of  this  rule,  are  such  as  the  following : 

1.  Because  marriage  ought  to  be  public.  For,  as  the  directory  of  the  Westmiu- 
ster  Assembly  says,  "Marriage  is  of  public  interest  iu  every  commonwealth." 
Hence,  "when  a  man  or  woman  proposes  to  enter  into  marriage  with  any  person, 
it  nearly  concerns  both  the  civil  society,  and  the  church  to  which  these  parties 
belong,  to  have  an  opportunity  of  knowing  who  they  are.  Communicating  the 
purpose  of  marriage  to  a  minister,  or  to  one  or  two  ciders,  even  when  attended 
with  the  consent  o1"  parents  or  guardians,  is  not  a  notification  of  the  marriage  to 
the  public:  it  is  still  private  or  clandestine.  But  a  public  marriage,  for  the  rea- 
son just  now  given,  is  more  decent  and  regular,  than  a  private  one.  And  there- 
fore, the  rule  of  the  previous  publication  of  marriage  ought  to  be  observed,  ac- 
cording to  the  apostolic  injtmction,  "Let  all  things  be  done  decentlv,  and  in  or- 
der," 1  Corinth,  xiv.  40. 

3.  The  observation  of  this  rule  is  a  proper  mean  of  preventing  the  dangerous 
consequences  which  are  apt  to  attend  private  marriages.  For,  ijy  such  previous 
publication  of  the  purpose  of  a  marriage,  an  opportunity  of  bringing  forward  suf- 
ficient objections  is  given  to  many  persons,  who  would  otherwise  have  no  such 
opportunity.  On  this  account,  it  is  a  rational  mean  of  preventing  marriag^es, 
against  which  there  are  sufiicient  objections  ;  of  preventing  bigamy,  the  violation 
of  contracts,  and  the  discord  of  flimilies.  In  short,  precipitate  marriages,  which, 
on  various  accounts,  are  prejudicial  to  the  welfare  of  the  parties,  and  to  the  in- 
terests of  religion,  are  the  native  consequence  of  negleciing  the  observation  of  a 
rule,  Avhich  affords  time,  after  the  proposal  of  a  marriage,  for  further  deliberation 
and  counsel. 

It  is  one  of  the  rules  given  in  our  Larger  Catechism  for  the  right  understanding 
of  the  ten  commandments,  that,  under  one  sin  that  is  forbidden,  all  the  means 
and  occasions  of  that  sin  arc  forbidden.  This  necessarily  implies,  that  the  wilful 
omission  of  such  means  as  have  a  known  tendency  to  prevent  that  sin.  is  also  for- 
bidden :  it  is  a  sinful  omission.  Hence  it  follows,"  that  when  marriages,  by  which 
persons  are  unequally  yoked  together,  or  involved  in  the  guilt  of  violating  any 
lawful  pre-contract,  or  of  doing  injury  to  parents  or  others,  are  forbidden  ;  then. 


APPENDIX.  503 

the  opeu,  unnecessary  and  wilful  omission  of  such  a  proper  mean  of  preventing 
these  evils,  as  the  previous  publication  of  the  purpose  of  marriage  is  found  to 
be,  must  also  be  forbidden ;  must  be  sinful  and  scandalous. 

it  ought  not  to  be  objected,  that  the  observation  of  this  rule  does  not  always 
prevent  these  disorders.  For  the  use  of  it  must  be  requisite,  while  it  has  a  rea- 
obuable  fitness  to  answer  the  end  of  preventing  the  evils  now  mentioned ;.  while, 
in  experience,  it  has  often  actually  prevented  them ;  and  while  it  does  not  hinder, 
but  rather  promote  the  use  of  all  other  means. 

o.  Because  a  good  and  useful  rule,  which  has  been  authorised,  both  in  the 
church  and  in  civil  society,  almost  from  time  immemorial  ought  not  to  be  laid 
aside  witliout  one  solid  reason  against  it,  and  without  being  shown  to  be  unsuita- 
ble to  our  present  situation.  The  previous  publication  of  marriage  appears  to  be 
an  ancient  order.  The  history  of  civilized  nations,  and  especially  sacred  history, 
represents  marriage  as  a  public  transaction.  Boaz  married  Ruth  publiclj',  before 
the  elders  and  people  at  the  gate  of  Bethlehem.  The  marriage  at  Caua  of  Galilee 
was  public,  where  it  is  evident,  there  \v'as  a  multitude  of  guests,  and  where  our 
Saviour,  by  the  miracle  of  turning  the  water  into  wine,  manifested  forth  his  glory. 
That  the  espousals  among  the  Jews  were  public,  appears  highly  probable  from 
the  public  feast,  called  in  the  Rabimoal  language  Keclushim^  which  Buxtorf  renders 
spojisalia  sacra  oh  matrhnordum^  i.  e.  sacred  espousals  in  order  to  marriage;*  and 
from  the  law  condemning  a  person  who  bad  criminal  intercourse  with  a  betrothed 
damsel  to  the  same  punishment,  which  was  incurred  by  adultery  ;t  in  which  case, 
we  cannot  reasonably  suppose,  that  a  person  w^ould  have  been  liable  to  such  a 
charge,  unless  there  had  been  an  opportunity  given  him  of  knowing  the  damsel's 
espousals  by  the  publication  of  them.  The  custom  of  espousals  some  time  be- 
fore the  celebration  of  marriage  appears  to  have  obtained  for  several  ages  in  tlie 
christian  church.  Ambrose  speaks  of  a  woman  having  made  espousals  before  ten 
witnesses.  J  There  are  various  regulations  in  the  pandects  of  Justinian  concern- 
ing this  matter.  Espousals  or  betrothing  differed  from  marriage,  as  the  promise 
of  a  thing  ditfers  from  the  performance  of  it.  There  were  distinct  ceremonies 
peculiar  to  each.  The  espousals  were  an  agreement  between  the  parties  concern- 
ing their  future  marriage ;  attended  with  gifts  and  other  tokens,  which  they 
gave  one  another  to  signify  the  engagement  they  came  under  to  enter,  at  a  cer- 
tain time,  into  the  marriage  relation.  This  engagement  was  committed  to  wri- 
ting. The  whole  affair  was  transacted  before  acompctent  number  of  witnesses. 
But  marriage  was  celebrated  by  a  minister  of  the  church,  or  a  civil  magistrate,  a 
sufficient  number  of  witnesses  being  present,  before  whom  the  parties  joined 
hands,  acknowledged  one  another  to  be  now  husband  and  wife,  and  solemnly  en- 
gaged to  perform  the  duties  of  the  marriage  relation. 

It  appears  that  it  \Yas  usual  among  the  primitive  christians,  for  any 

who  had  a  purpose  of  marriage,  to  acquaint  the  church  with  it.     Ter- 

tullian,  who  wrote  in  the  third  century,  represents  it  as  necessary,  for 

a  person  intending  to  enter  into  marriage  with  any  one,  to  aslv  leave 

of  every  order  of  the  church,   even  of  the  widows  as  well  as  of  the 

Ijishop,  the  elders  and  deacons  ;   in  order  that,  if  any  one  had   a  just 

objection  against  the  person's  intention  ;  such  as,  that  he  was  about 

to  marry  a  heathen,  a  Jew  or  a  heretic,  or  one  too  nearly  related  ;  such 

a  marriage  might  be  prevented.  ||     And  in   another  treatise  he  says, 

"  Weems's  Explication  of  the  Judicial  Laws  of  Moses,  page  182. 
t  Deut.  sxii.  S5,  26. 

Ambros.  ad  virginem  lapsam,  cap.  6.  Si  inter  decern  testes  confectis  sponsa- 
liis,  tfcc. 

I  Qualis  cs  id  matrimonium  postulans,  quod  eis  a  quibus  postulas,  non  licet  ha- 
bere; ab  Episeopo  monogamo,  a  presbyteris  et  diaconis  ejnsdem  sacrameuti ;  a 
viduis,  quarumsectam  in  te  recusasti,  &c.  Tertel.  de  Monogam.  Vide  Binghami 
Antiquitates,  vol.  3.  page  371. 


504  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

Among  us,  secret  marriages,  that  is,  such  as  are  not  publicly  profes- 
sed before  the  church  are  in  danger  of  being  condemned,  as  little  bet- 
ter than  fornication  or  adultery.*  In  the  Reformed  Churches,  the 
rule  of  publishing  the  purpose  of  marriage  a  competent  time  before 
the  celebration  of  it,  has  been  generally  observed.  In  the  Church  of 
Scotland,  particularly,  marriage  without  previous  publication  is  pro- 
hibited as  having  dangerous  effects,  excepting  when  a  presbytery  in 
some  necessary  exigences  dispenses  with  it,  according  to  an  act  of  the 
23d  session  of  the  justly  celebrated  assembly  which  met  at  Glasgow 
in  the  year  1638.  In  the  l2th  session  of  the  Assembly  in  1690,  an 
act  was  passed  approving  several  overtures,  one  of  which  was,  that 
no  celebration  of  marriage  without  due  proclamation  of  banns  three 
several  Sabbaths  in  their  respective  parishes,  should  be  allowed  ;  re- 
commending it  to  presbyteries  to  censure  the  contra veners.f  Mr. 
Stewart  of  Purdoven,  in  his  Collections,  certainly  expresses  the  sense 
of  the  Church  of  Scotland  in  her  purest  times,  when  he  says.  That 
those  who  get  themselves  married  without  proclamation  of  banns  should 
undoubtedly  be  rebuked  as  unnecessary  transgressors  of  a  very  come- 
ly and  rational  church  order.  By  the  18th  article  of  the  13th  chap- 
ter of  the  Discipline  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  France,  those  who 
live  in  places  where  the  usual  exercises  of  religion  are  not  established, 
may  cause  their  banns  to  be  published  in  Roniish  churches  ;  as  the 
matter  is  partly  of  a  political  nature.  J 

It  cannot,  therefore  be  said,  that  this  rule  of  the  plublication  of  mar- 
riage is  only  occasional  or  temporary.  It  has  obtained  from  the  early 
ages  of  the  christian  church  unto  this  day.  Nor  can  it  be  said  to  be 
orjy  local ;  for  the  reason  of  it  is  not  peculiar  to  any  country.  And 
the  history  of  the  church  assures  us  that  it  obtained  in  various  coun- 
tries. Particularly  with  regard  to  the  Reformed  Churches,  it  has  been 
still  adhered  to  in  those  of  Great  Britain,  of  Ireland,  of  France,  and 
of  the  Low  Countries.  We  know  not  that  a  different  rule  has  been, 
as  yet,  adopted  by  any  of  these  churches. 

It  may  be  justly  said,  that  this  rule  is  not  unsuitable  to  the  circum- 
stances of  the  United  States  for  this  plain  reason,  that  it  has  not  been 
judged  to  be  so  either  by  church  or  state.  The  law  in  some  of  the 
United  States  expressly  requires  the  parties  who  propose  marriage, 
not  only  to  obtain  the  consent  of  parents,  or  guardians,  if  they  have 
any,  but  also  to  publish  their  intentions  of  marriage,  in  each  respec- 
tive county  where  they  reside,  one  month  before  the  solemnization  of 

*  Ideo  penes  nos  occultae  quoque  conjunctiones,  id  est,  non  prius  apud  Ecelc- 
siam  professae,  juxta  moechiam  et  fornicationem  judicari  jjerielitantur,  &e.  Ter- 
tul.  de  pudicitia.  Vide  antiquitates  easdem,  page  388. 

t  Brown's  History  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  pages  156  and  323. 
X  Stewart's  Collect.  Book  ii.  Tit.  5th. 


APPENDIX.  505 

it*  And  there  is  no  law  in  any  of  the  United  States  to  deter  a  reli- 
gious society  from  requiring  this  rule  of  publication  before  marriage, 
to  be  observed  by  its  own  members.  With  regard  to  the  church,  it  is 
well  known,  that  the  rule  in  question  has  been  always  acknowledged, 
and  in  some  measure  observed  by  those  of  the  Presbyterian  denomina- 
tion in  this  country.  It  is  true,  that  deviations  from  it,  have  not  been 
duly  censured.  But  still  in  such  cases  the  iniquity  has  been  tacitly  al- 
lowed to  be,  not  in  the  rule,  but  in  the  transgressors  of  it.  For  as 
the  rule  in  the  Directory  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  stands,  as  yet, 
unimpeaehed  ;  so  the  substance  of  it  is  retained  in  the  New  Directo- 
ry of  the  General  Assembly  in  this  country.  "  Marriage,"  say  they, 
'Ms  of  a  public  nature.  The  welfare  of  civil  society,  the  happiness  of 
families,  and  the  credit  of  religion  are  deeply  interested  in  it.  There- 
fore, the  purpose  of  marriage  ought  to  be  sufficiently  published,  a 
proper  time,  previously  to  the  solemnization  of  it.  It  is  enjoined  on 
all  ministers  to  be  careful,  that  in  this  matter,  they  neither  transgress 
the  laws  of  God,  nor  the  laws  of  the  community.  And  that  they  may 
not  destroy  the  peace  and  comfort  of  families,  they  must  be  properly 
certified  with  respect  to  the  parties  applying  to  them,  that  no  just  ob- 
jections be  against  their  marriage."  Here  it  is  to  be  observed,  that 
the  General  Assembly  acknowledge,  that  the  omission  of  the  publica- 
tion of  marriage  a  proper  time  previous  to  the  solemnization  of  it,  be- 
ing manifestly  the  omission  of  a  suitable  mean  of  certifying  that  no 
just  objections  lie  against  a  marriage,  is  a  transgression  of  the  law  of 
God  as  well  as  of  the  laws  of  the  community ;  a  transgression,  of 
which  all  that  wilfully  and  unnecessarily  omit  said  publication  in  their 
own  marriage,  or  in  celebrating  the  marriages  of  others,  are  guilty  ; 
a  transgression  which  the  Presbyterian  church  cannot  suffer  to  pass 
uncensured,  without  being  self  condemned.  The  Associate  Reformed 
Synod   confess  the  truth  in  the  following  words  :  It  is  an  excellent 

*  See  the  Act  of  the  Assembly  of  the  state  of  Prennsylvania  for  preventing  clan- 
destiiic  marriages.  This  act  holds  the  marriages  of  persons,  who  are  members  of 
any  religious  society,  to  be  regular,  when  they  are  celebrated  according  to  the  or- 
der used  in  that  society,  provided  only  that  notice  be  given  by  either  of  the  par- 
ties, one  full  month  before  the  celebration  of  it,  to  the  parents,  masters  or  guar- 
dians. 

The  Quakers,  in  the  order  of  their  society,  show  the  sense  they  have  of  the  pro- 
priety of  publication  before  marriage.  "  When  marriage  is  agreed  upon  between 
two  persons,  the  man  and  the  woman,  at  one  of  the  monthly  meetings,  publicly 
declare  their  intention,  and  ask  leave  to  proceed.  At  this  time,  their  parents,  if 
living,  must  either  appear,  or  send  certificates  to  signify  their  consent.  This  be- 
ing done,  two  men  are  appointed  by  the  men's  meeting,  and  two  women  are  ap- 
pointed by  that  of  the  women,  to  wait  upon  the  man  and  the  woman  respectively, 
and  to  learn  from  themselves,  as  well  as  by  other  inquiry,  if  they  stand  perfectly 
clear  from  any  marriage  promises  and  engagements  to  others.  At  the  next  month- 
ly meeting,  the  deputation  make  their  report.  If  cither  of  the  parties  is  reported 
to  have  given  expectation  of  marriage  to  any  other  individual,  the  proceedings 
are  stopped  till  the  matter  be  satisfactorily  explained.  But  if  they  are,  both  of 
them,  reported  to  be  clear  in  this  respect,  they  are  at  liberty  to  proceed,  and  one 
or  more  persons  of  respectibility  of  each  sex,  are  deputed  to  see  that  the  marriage 
be  conducted  in  an  orderly  manner."  Clarksoii's  Portraiture  of  Quakerism. 


506  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

msan  of  preventing  '*  improper  or  unlawful  marriages,  that  the  pur- 
pose of  marriage,  previously  to  the  solemnization  thereof,  be  published 
three  several  Sabbaths  to  the  congregation  at  the  place  or  places, 
where  the  parties  usually  reside.  "*  It  is  observable,  however,  that 
this  synod  do  not  enjoin  the  publication  of  the  purpose  of  marriage  as 
a  standing  rule  in  ordinary  cases  :  and  yet  they  do  not  point  out  any 
peculiarity  in  the  circumstances  of  people  in  the  United  States,  render- 
ing such  a  deviation  from  the  Directory  of  the  ^Vestminster  Assembly 
necessary.  The  truth  is,  the  disorders,  which  the  previous  publica- 
tion of  marriage  is  a  proper  mean  of  preventing,  are  rather  more  fre- 
quent, and  from  the  continual  removing  of  the  inhabitants  to  new  set- 
tlements, more  apt  to  be  frequent,  in  the  United  States  than  in  Brit- 
ain ;  and  therefore  one  is  naturally  led  to  conclude,  that  the  use  of 
such  publicatiou  is  more  necessary  in  the  former  than  in  the  latter. 
It  now  may  be  proper  to  consider  some  objections  that  have  been  of- 
fered against  the  publication  of  marriages. 

Objectiok  1.  There  are  cases  in  which  it  is  impracticable  to  observe  the  usual 
mode  of  publication  three  several  Sabbaths  before  the  marria<re.  Sometimes  the 
bauus,  as  they  are  called,  are  proclaimed  only  one  or  two  Sabbaths  ;  and  some- 
times a  minister  or  magistrate  is  called  to  celebrate  a  marriage  in  such  circum- 
stances as  admit  of  no  delay. 

A>;s.  Hardly  any  rules  of  order  are  without  exceptions  ;  which,  however,  do 
not  take  away  the  use  of  such  rules.  "When  publication  before  marriage  has  been 
enjoined  either  by  church  or  state,  the  exception  of  extraordinary  cases,  such  as, 
that  of  a  soldier  or  sailor  being  suddenly  called  to  leave  the  placed  where  the  mar-'' 
riage  is  proposed  to  be  celebrated,  is  always  understood.  They  ought  to  be  con- 
sidered as  observers  of  this  rule,  who  give  proper  evidence,  that  they  sincerely  en- 
deavor to  observe  it,  as  far  as  the  circumstances  of  cases  admit. 

Objectiox.  2.  This  rule  has  not  such  scriptural  evidence  as  would  warrant  any 
church  to  make  it  a  term  of  communion. 

Ans.  The  terms  of  communion,  according  to  our  declaration  and  testimony, 
are  a  proper  knowledge  of  the  truth,  a  faitliful  profession  of  it,  with  a  conversa- 
tion and  practice  becoming  the  gospel.  But  it  is  not  consistent  with  such  a  pro- 
fession and  practice,  for  a  person  to  refuse  to  observe  the  rules  of  good  order  in 
the  society  to  w^hich  he  belongs  ;  or  to  disregard  such  rules  as  trivial;  while  he 
cannot  show,  that  they  are  unlawful  or  unnecessary,  or  disagreeable  to  the  gen- 
eral rules  of  the  word  of  God.  The  previous  publication  of  marriages  has  been 
shown  to  be  scriptural,  by  the  same  sort  of  reasoning  and  inference  from  the  pre- 
cepts and  examples  of  scripture,  as  that  which  we  use  in  proving  the  warrauta- 
bleness  of  various  forms  belonging  to  the  order  of  our  churches;  such  as  the  dis- 
tribution of  tokens  of  admission  to  the  Lord's  table,  employing  ruling  elders  to 
carry  the  elements  used  in  the  Lord's  supper  to  communicants,  the  serving  of 
edicts  at  the  .ordination  of  ministers  and  elders. 

Object.  3.  The  profanation  of  the  Sabbath  is  occasioned  by  the  custom  of 
publishing  the  purpose  of  marriage  on  that  daj'. 

Ams.  The  principle,  now  contended  for,  (which  is,  that  marriage  ought  to  be 
public,  not  private,)  does  not  require  the  publication  to  be  on  the  Lord's  day.  If 
an  opportunity  occurs  of  publishing  a  marriage  on  another  day,  it  should  not  be 
neglected.  But  if  there  is  no  opportunity  of  publishing  it  on  another  da}-,  that 
which  is  afforded  by  the  public  assemblies  on  the  Sabbath,  ought  to  be  embraced. 
Not  that  it  is  an  ordinance  of  the  Sabbath,  or  formally  an  exercise  of  religious 
w^orship :  but  because,  though  it  belongs  to  our  seculiar  concerns,  yet  it  is  one  of 
those  works  of  necessity  and  mercy,  which  must  sometimes  be  done  on  the  Sab- 
bath ;  or  be  neglected.  For  in  order  that  marriage  may  be  regular,  it  is  neces- 
sary, that  it  be  public,  and  not  private.    Nor  would  the  publication  of  a  proposed 

*  Constitution  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod,  Appendix  iii. 


APPENDIX.  507 

marriage  on  the  Lord's  day  have  any  such  tendency,  as  has  been  allcdged,  to  di- 
vert the  minds  of  christians  from  the  proper  exercises  of  that  day,  if  the  following 
considerations  were  dulv  attended  to  :  r^     , 

1.  That  marria"-e  is  of  pccnliarlv  serious  consideration  as  an  ordinance  of  God  ; 
the  institution  ot^  which  is  expressly  recorded  in  Gen,  ii.  18.  It  is  a  contract,  as 
the  judicious  Mr.  Calderwood*  observes,  partly  divine,  partly  political.  Keiice, 
he  considers  the  cognizance  of  it  as  belonging  to  the  church  no  less  than  to  the 
state. 

2.  That  the  church  of  Christ  has  a  peculiar  interest  in  the  right  use  of  marriage, 
and  in  preventirg  the  abuses  of  it.  Marriage,  in  the  right  use  of  it,  is  a  means  of 
propagating  a  godly  seed,  Mai.  ii.  15.  The  abuse  of  it  is  a  principal  cause  of  de- 
fection in  the  church.  It  was  one  principal  cause  of  that  prevailing  wicke-lness 
which  brought  the  flood  upon  the  old_  world,  Gen.  vi.  3,  3.  The  publication  of 
marriage  is  one  of  the  means  of  preventing  such  abuse. 

3.  That  it  is  one  of  the  ends  or  uses  of  the  publication  of  the  purpose  of  mar- 
riage, that  the  parties,  in  takina;  so  important  a  step,  in  which  both  their  temporal 
and  spiritual  welfare  is  so  much  concerned,  may  have  the  benefit  of  the  sympathy 
and  prayers  of  their  christian  brethren.  These'eonsidcrations,  all  taken  logciher, 
distinguish  the  publication  of  the  purpose  of  marriage  from  the  notification  of  or- 
dinary contracts  about  secular  affairs  ;  and  show  that  the  former  is  not,  like  the 
latter,  inconsistent  with  the  sauctifi cation  of  the  Sabbath.  Nor  can  it  be  inferred 
to  be  so  from  levity  of  some,  Avho  are  in  the  habit  of  laughing  or  smiling  at  the 
publication  of  a  marriage  :— In  this  case,  it  is  not  the  publication  of  marriage,  but 
the  folly  of  trifling  with  a  serious  matter,  that  ought  to  be  corrected.  Wicked 
men  may  make  a  "necessary  duty  a  stumbling-block  to  themselves.  But  it  does 
not  follow,  that  the  people  of  God  ought  to  regard  it  in  that  light,  or  to  omit  the 
practice  of  it. 

Object.  4.  The  publication  of  the  purpose  of  marriage  is  unknown  in  many 
places,  and  people  cannot  be  brou2:ht  to  imderstaud  the  use  of  it. 

Ans.  This  plea  cannot  be  insisted  on  with  any  color  of  reason,  where  the  pub- 
lication of  marriage  is  authorised  by  the  law  of  the  state;  nor  among  people  who 
are  of  the  Presbyterian  denomination,  by  whom  the  Confession  and  Directory  of 
the  Westminster  Assembly,  or  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  United  States,  have 
been  received.  Besides,  it  is  the  business  of  both  magistrates  and  ministers  to 
inform  the  people  of  the  rule  according  to  which  marriages  ought  to  be  celebra- 
ted, and  to  warn  them  a^•ainst  whatever  is  irregular  or  of  evil  tendency  in  this 
matter.  The  more  ignorant  the  people  are,  they  have  the  more  need  of  counsel ; 
and  the  less  reason  have  ministers  or  magistrates  to  excuse  their  negligence  on 
account  of  the  caprice  or  inclination  of  such  people. 

Object.  5.  Licences,  according  to  which  the  parties  or  their  bail  enter  into  a 
bond,  rendering  them  liable  to  pay  a  great  sum  of  money,  perhaps  1000  dollars, 
in  case  it  shall  be  found  that  there  is  a  precontract  or  any  other  relevant  objection 
against  the  marriage,  may  well  serve  as  a  substitute  for  publication,  and  may  an- 
swer the  erds  of  it. 

Ans.  One  end,  which  it  cannot  answer,  is  very  obvious;  it  does  not  make  the 
marriage  public.  But  in  ordinary  cases,  marriage,  to  be  regular,  ought,  as  we 
have  seen,  to  be  public.  Whatever  penalties  may  be  incurred  by  marrying  with 
such  a  license  as  is  now  described,  it  is  of  little  avail,  while  a  person  who  is  de- 
termined to  violate  a  pre-contract,  or  any  other  important  obligation,  is  often 
ready  to  enter  into  a  bond  himself,  or  to  prevail  on  some  other  person  to  give  bail 
for  the  sum  proposed,  if  he  may  thereby  accomplish  his  end.  Nor  is  the  dauger 
of  the  legal  penalty  in  such  a  bond  very  great.  It  is  reasonable  to  suppose,  that 
manv  Avould  ofl["er  relevant  objections  in  order  to  prevent  an  unhappy  marriage, 
who'could  never  think  of  prosecuting  the  offender,  or  his  bail,  for  a  sum  of  money, 
while  the  principal  evil,  the  marriage,  which  is  likely  to  render  the  seduced  party 
miserable  for  life,  cannot  be  remedied. 

On  this  subject,  it  is  proper  to  observe,  that  wha.t  is  granted  by  a 
license  to  the  parties  proposing  marriage,  is  something  which  they 
either  had,  or  had  not,  a  right  to  without  the  license.  We  have  gran- 
ted, that  in  some  cases,  persons  ought  to  be  married  without  having 

*  Altare  Damascenum,  page  326. 


508  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

the  purpose  of  marriage  published  the  usual  time  before.  And  then 
it  is  a  matter  of  right :  the  reason  of  it  does  not  lie  in  any  licence  or 
bond,  but  in  the  peculiar  necessity  and  utility  of  departing,  in  such  a 
case,  from  the  common  rule.  But  a  licence  to  depart  from  that  rule, 
without  regard  to  necessity  or  utility,  from  mere  favor,  or  for  money, 
ought  not  to  be  granted  or  accepted.* 

When  the  Papal  authority  was  cast  off  by  Henry  the  YIII,  of  Eng- 
land, a  power  was  given  by  an  act  of  parliament  to  the  archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  of  granting  licences  to  marry  without  publication  of  the 
banns  three  several  Sundays,  according  to  the  direction  in  the  liturgy. 
The  prelates,  in  a  canon  dated  in  the  year  1603,  appointed  such  licen- 
ses to  be  granted  to  none,  but  persons  of  quality,  as  they  are  called ; 
and  added  many  precautions;  such  as,  that  they  should  not  be  grant- 
ed in  cases  in  which  the  parties  were  within  the  prohibited  degrees  of 
affinity  ;  or  where  there  was  a  pre-contract,  or  any  other  lawful  bar ; 
or  where  any  of  the  parties  had  not  obtained  the  express  consent  of 
their  parents  or  guardians,  if  they  had  any.  Besides,  every  marriage 
by  such  licences  was  to  be  solemnized  publicly  in  the  church  or  chap- 
el of  the  parish  in  which  one  of  the  parties  resided.  Considering  these 
precautions,  the  licences  of  these  prelates  seem  to  have  been  much  less 
liable  to  abuse,  than  those  described  in  the  objection.  Yet,  says  Mr. 
Calderwood,  notwithstanding  the  precautions  of  the  canon  in  1603, 
many  abuses  and  enormities  are  occasioned  by  these  licences  :  parents 
are  bereaved  of  their  children ;  contracts  of  marriage  are  eluded  ; 
clandestine  marriages  take  place,  without  the  knowledge  of  the  pastor 
or  church,  to  which  the  parties  belong.* 

Object.  6.  They  ought  not  to  be  called  clandestine  marriages,  which  are  au- 
thorised by  law. 

Ans.  The  objector  seems  to  confound  the  epithets  clandestine  and  illegal.  If 
an  action  be  authorized  by  the  law  of  any  state,  it  will  not  be  illegal,  or  it  will  not 
subject  a  person  to  any  penalty  in  that  state.  But  it  does  not  follow  that  such  an 
action  is  not  clandestine ;  that  is,  private  when  it  ought  to  be  public.  A  state 
may  be  said  to  permit  clandestine  marriages,  when  the  law  expressly  appoints  the 
previous  publication  of  marriages  under  a  penalty ;  and  yet,  in  particular  cases, 

*  The  licenses  here  meant,  are  properly  permissions  to  deviate  from  the  gen- 
eral rule  of  the  law  concerning  marriage.  Thus,  a  marriage  license  in  England, 
is  a  permission  to  depart  from  the  order  of  marriage  prescribed  in  the  liturgy  of 
the  church,  which  is  there  established  by  law.  In  Pennsylvania,  a  marriage  license 
is  a  permission  to  depart  from  the  principal  direction  of  the  Act  of  the  Assemblv 
of  that  state,  for  preventing  clandestine  marriages.  But  license  must  be  consid- 
ered in  another  light,  where  they  belong  so  much  to  the  common  and  legal  order 
of  marriage,  that  the  law  allows  none  to  marry  or  be  married  without  them. 
These  two  sorts  of  licenses  are  very  different.  The  former  sort  are  granted  in 
England  and  in  Pennsylvania,  on  purpose  that  the  marriage  may  be  private  ;  the 
latter  sort,  being  granted  with  no  such  design,  rather  tend  to  make  marriages 
public.  The  former  altogether  precludes  the  publication  of  the  marriages  or  li- 
censed, according  to  the  order  of  any  religious  society  to  which  the  parties  be- 
long :  the  latter  does  not  at  all  interfere  with^the  mode  of  publication,  which  has 
been  adopted  by  any  religious  society. 

*  Altare  Damascenum,  pages  64,  65. 


APPENDIX.  509 

in  which  there  is  no  peculiar  reason  of  necessity  or  utility,  grants  licences  to 
marry  privately.  Mr.  Stewart,  of  Pardovan,  tells  us,  that  persons  may  be  mar- 
ried clandestinely  two  ways :  One  is,  when  banns  are  not  proclaimed;  the  other 
is,  when  the  marriage  is  celebrated  by  one  not  ordained  and  admitted  by  the  church, 
nor  authorized  by  the  state.  The  phrase  is  used  in  much  the  same  sense,  accord- 
ing to  Blackstone,  in  the  laws  of  England. 

Object.  7.  The  publication  of  marriage  is  a  civil  aflFair,  which  concerns  the 
commonwealth.  But  according  to  our  Confession  of  Faith,  synods  and  councils 
are  to  handle  and  conclude  nothing  but  that  which  is  ecclesiastical ;  and  are  not 
to  intermeddle  with  civil  affairs,  which  concern  the  commonwealth. 

Ans.  It  is  true,  that  they  are  not  to  do  the  peculiar  business  of  the  state ;  they 
are  not  to  determine  what  form  of  civil  government  should  be  adopted  in  any  par- 
ticular country ;  what  penalties  should  be  incurred  by  the  breach  of  the  civil  law: 
or  by  what  ways  and  means  money  should  be  raised  for  the  support  of  civil  gov- 
ernment :  or  what  particular  forms  of  procedure  should  be  used  in  civil  courts. 
Such  affairs  are  so  peculiar  to  the  state,  that  church  courts  ought  not  to  intermed- 
dle with  them,  unless,  as  our  confession  says,  by  way  of  humble  petition,  in  cases 
extraordinary,  or  by  way  of  advice,  for  satisfaction  of  conscience,  if  they  be  there- 
unto required  by  the  civil  magistrate.  It  is  evident,  however,*that  the  Westmin- 
ster Assembly  did  not  view  the  publication  of  marriage  as  belonging  to  this  class; 
but  rather  as  among  these  things  that  are  cognizable  by  both  civil  and  ecclesias- 
tical courts  ;  such  as,  the  manner  of  taking  an  oath,  by  kissing  the  book  of  the 
gospels;  the  unlawfulness  of  marriage  between  parties  within  certain  degrees  of 
kindred  :  or  of  divorces  in  any  other  cases  than  that  of  adultery,  perjury,  stealing, 
and  many  other  immoralities.  These  evils,  however,  are  cogni^ble  by  the  civil 
courts  and  by  the  church  courts  in  different  points  of  view.  In  the  former,  per- 
sons accused  of  such  evils,  are  considered  as  members  of  civil  society ;  in  the  lat- 
ter, as  professing  christians.  These  evils  are  condemned  in  civil  courts  as  injuri- 
ous to  the  commonwealth,  and  as  breaches  of  human  laws  :  but  in  the  church 
courts,  as  giving  scandal  and  offence  to  the  church,  and  as  breaches  of  the  Di- 
vine law. 

The  sentences  of  civil  courts  are  enforced  by  the  sword  or  external 
force  ;  those  of  church  courts  by  spiritual  censures  only.  Thus,  in 
various  respects,  the  wilful  and  causeless  neglect  of  the  publication 
of  marriage  may  be  a  ground  of  civil  punishment  in  the  state  ;  and 
at  the  same  time,  of  spiritual  censures  in  the  church.  It  is  further 
to  be  observed,  that  the  spiritual  kingdom  of  Christ  is  distinct  from, 
and  independent  on  the  civil  state  :  and  therefore,  the  same  action 
may  be  agreeable  to  the  laws  of  the  state,  and  yet  censurable  as  a 
scandal  in  the  church.  Hence,  it  is  no  reason  why  persons  should 
not  be  censured  in  the  church  for  such  a  neglect  of  the  publication 
of  a  marriage  as  is  now  described,  that  it  is  not  condemned  by  the 
laws  of  the  particular  state  where  they  reside.  Sessions  or  presbyte- 
ries are  courts  of  another  kingdom,  quite  distinct  from  the  civil  state  ; 
these  spiritual  courts  have  laws  and  regulations  of  their  own,  accord- 
ing to  which  they  are  to  judge  of  the  conduct  of  their  members  ;  and 
to  censure  whatever  is  found  contrary  to  these  laws  and  regulations ; 
however  agreeable  it  may  be  to  the  laws  of  this  or  the  other  civil 
state.  In  doing  so,  church  courts  cannot  be  justly  said  to  intermed- 
dle with  matters  that  are  without  their  sphere  ;  for  nothing  belongs 
more  properly  to  their  business,  than  to  censure  whatever  they  find  in 
the  conduct  of  their  members  contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  or  unbe- 
coming the  christian. 


510  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

NO.  6.    ON  THE  STYLE  OR  MANNER  OF  EXPRESSION  WHICH  OUGHT 
TO  BE  USED  IN  PREACHING  THE  GOSPEL. 

The    Associate  Synod  calling  for  tbe  report  of   their  committee 

of  overtures,  the    following   overture  was  given  in  and  read,  viz  : 

"  That  tlie  Synod  would  consider  of  some  proper  method  of  cautionmg  those 
under  their  inspection  who  may  be  pointing  towards  public  work  in  the  church 
tiirainst  an  aifected  pedantry  of  style  and  pronunciation,  and  politeness  of  expres- 
sion, in  delivering:  the  truths  of  the  gospel,  as  being  a  using  of  the  euticing 
words  of  man's  wi^sdom,  and  inconsistent  with  tliat  gravity,  which  the  weight  of 
the  matter  of  the  gospel  requires;  and  as  proceeding  from  an  atfectation  to  ac' 
commodate  the  gospel  in  point  of  style,  which,  if  not  prevented,  may  at  length 
issue  in  attempts  to  accommodate  it  also  in  point  of  matter  to  the  corrupted 
taste  of  a  carnal  generation:  and  that  they  would  recommend  it  to  all  the  ministers 
of  the  Synod,  to  show  a  suitable  pattern  in  this  matter  ;  endeavoring  in  their  pub- 
lic ministrations,  by  the  manifestation  of  the  truth  in  plainness  and  gravity,  to 
recommend  themselves  to  every  man's  conscience  in  the  sight  of  God  :  andlhat 
at  the  same  time  the  Synod  give  caution  against  all  such  meanness  and  impropri- 
ety of  language,  as  have  a  tendency  to  bring  discredit  upon  the  gospel ;  as  also 
against  using  technical,  philosophical  and  learned  terms,  that  are  not  commonly 
understood." 

Tlie  above  being  again  read,  and  reasoned  upon  ;  the  Synod  agreed, 

without  a  vote,  in  appointing,  recommending  and  cautioning  accord- 

ing'ly.     And  further  they  recommended  to  the  several  Presbyteries  to 

have  an  extract  of  this  act  ingrossed  in  their  respective  books  ;  and 

to  be  careful  to  conform  thereto,  in  the  licensing  of  young  men. 

NO.  7.    OF  THE  CHURCH'S  ENDEAVORING  TO  GO  ON  TOWARD  PER- 
FECTION. 

Perfection  is  an  object  which  the  church  ought  constantly  to  have 
in  view.  '•  Leaving,"  says  the  apostle  Paul,  "  the  principles  of  the 
oracles  of  God,  let  us  go  on  unto  perfection.  The  church  as  well  as 
every  believer  ought  to  imitate  the  example  of  that  apostle  which  he 
sets  before  us  in  these  words  ;  Not  as  though  I  had  already  attained  ; 
or  were  already  perfect :  but  this  one  thing  I  do  :  forgetting  those 
things  which  are  behind,  and  reaching  forth  to  those  things  which  are 
before,  I  press  toward  the  mark  for  the  prize  of  the  high  calling  of  God 
in  Christ  Jesus.  The  propensity  to  know  or  attain  something  new, 
is,  in  itself,  a  necessary  principle  of  our  nature  as  reasonable  creatures, 
and  directed  by  the  word  and  Spirit  of  God,  produces  excellent  effect ; 
but  in  our  nature,  as  deprived  and  destitute  of  that  direction,  it  de- 
generates into  a  capricious  fondness  for  novelty,  or  into  the  affecta- 
tion, ascribed  to  the  Athenians,  of  telling  and  hearing  some  new  thing, 
without  regard  to  its  real  value  or  usefulness.  The  prevalence  of  this 
evil  in  the  christian  is  both  a  sign  and  a  cause  of  spiritual  declension  ; 
as  he  thereby  loses  the  relish  he  once  had  for  many  of  the  truths  and 
ordinances  </f  Christ ;  and  it  is  a  great  source  of  error  and  corruption 
in  the  visible  church.  But  this  evil  may  be  distinguished  from  the 
scriptural  endeavors  of  the  church  of  Christ  to  make  progress  in  the 
knowledge  and  profession  of  the  truth  in  the  following  respects  : 

First,  by  the  church's  care  to  receive  all  her  new  information  with  regard  to 
truth  or  duty,  upon  no  less  authority  than  that  of  God,  speaking  to  us  in  the  Holy 


APPENDIX.  511 

Scriptures.  Real  advances  in  reformation,  either  in  the  case  of  a  particular  chris- 
tian, or  in  that  of  the  church,  are  the  fruit  of  diligence  in  searching  the  scriptures. 
See  an  exami>lc  to  this  purpose  in  Nehom.  xiii.  1  and  :i>.  Every  proposal  of  a  new 
step  in  reformation,  should  be  evidently  supported  either  by  the  express  words, 
or  by  the  necessary  consequence  of  what  is  written. 

Second,  by  her  s'incere  endeavors  to  hold  f;xst  the  measure  of  conformity  to  the 
word  of  God,  which  she  h;is  attained ;  according  to  the  charge  that  our  Lord  gives 
the  church  in  Philadelphia,  Revel,  iii.  10  ;  and  the  apostle's  direction  in  Philip, 
iii.  16.  It  may  be  justly  denied,  that  there  arc  any  rail  scriptural  attainments  of 
christians,  either  in  their  individual  or  in  iheir  united  capacity,  that  have  a  native 
tendency  to  render  them  less  careful  to  retain  any  particular  aeknowledged  point 
of  Divine  truth,  or  less  attentive  to  any  particular  acknowledged  duty,  than  they 
were  before.  To  neglect  to  insert  in  our  testimony  2>ar^tc«?ar  articles  of  faith  or 
practice,  which  had  been  inserted  in  it  in  opposition  to  errors  which  are  still 
avowed  and  acted  on,  under  the  pretence,  thai  avc  still  retain  in  our  testimony 
the  general  principles  of  truth  and  duty,  is  going  backward,  instead  of  going  for- 
ward unto  perfection.  It  is  to  decline  an  open  unequivocal  confession  of  some 
part  of  Christ's  name  ;  while  that  evil  is  greatly  aggravated  by  our  former  confes- 
sion of  it. 

Third,  by  the  tendency  of  new  attainments,  to  promote  a  due  regard  to  the  ex- 
amples of  the  church's  former  attainments.  These  examples  are  instructive,  as 
they  serve  to  illustrate  those  parts  of  the  Divine  rule  to  which  they  are  conforma- 
ble. Hence,  that  direction  in  Sonjr  i.  8.  The  several  parts  of  truth  and  duty,  ex- 
hibited in  the  scripture,  are  so  uniform  and  consistent,  that  they  recommend  one 
another  :  they  are  so  much  of  a  piece,  that  they  are  called  one  way;  and,  with  re- 
gard to  the  examples  of  those  who  have  gone  before  us,  they  are  called  the  old  imj^ 
Jercm.  vi.  16.  Our  new  advances  in  reformation  should  be  so  much  of  a  piece 
with  the  examples  of  the  Lord's  peoph.-  in  former  times,  as  to  be,  on  the  matter, 
nothing  else  but  our  walking  forward  in  the  same  old  way. 

That  the  Associate  Presbytery  tirst,  and  the  Associate  Synod  after- 
ward have  not  altogether  failed  in  their  endeavors  to  aim  at  farther  at- 
tainments in  reformation,  cannot  well  be  denied,  by  such  as  are  duly  ac- 
quainted with  their  Judicial  Testimony  ;  their  act  concerning  the 
doctrine  of  grace  ;  the  declaration  of  their  principles  concerning  civil 
government ;  their  act  concerning  the  renewing  of  the  national  cove- 
nant of  Scotland,  and  of  the  Solemn  league  of  England,  Scotland  and 
Ireland  ;  their  decisions  concerning  the  religious  clause  of  some  bur- 
gess oaths,  and  concerning  the  mason  oath  ;  their  act  concerning  par- 
ticular redemption  ;  their  testimony  against  Lord  Karnes's  scheme  of 
liberty  in  the  censure  of  Mr.  Pirie,  who  had  attempted  to  propagate 
that  scheme  among  their  young  men  who  studied  under  him  with  a 
view  to  the  ministry. 

NO.  8.    OF  THE  CAUSE  OF  GOD- 

All  the  truths,  ordinances  and  offices,  which  the  Lord  hath  made 
known  to  his  church,  are  to  be  considered  as  belonging  to  his  cause. 

There  is  much  opposition  made  to  the  cause  of  God  by  different 
bodies  of  christians,  who  profess  to  be  cleaving  to  it.  For  if  these 
truths,  ordinances  of  worship,  and  form  of  government,  which  God 
hath  revealed  and  enjoined  by  his  authority,  tend  to  promote  his  glo- 
ry, in  the  conversion,  edification  and  complete  salvation  of  souls; 
then,  "  every  deviation"  from  these,  must  have  some  opposite  tend- 
ency. 

One  of  the  methods  by  which  God  pleads  his  cause,  in  a  time  of 


512  ALEXANDER  AND   RUFUS. 

general  apostacy  from  it,  is  that  of  disposing  and  enabling  a  number 
of  persons  to  hold  it  fast.  They  are  as  prone  to  wander  from  God's 
way  as  other  men.  God  is  not  indebted  to  the  friends  of  his  cause  : 
they  owe  whatever  faithfulness  in  adhering  to  his  cause  they  attain, 
to  his  free  grace.  They  are  not  to  be  viewed  as  a  set  of  men,  united 
in  a  party,  for  some  notions  of  their  own,  or  for  their  own  cause,  in 
opposition  to  other  parties.  But,  if  the  religious  principles  they 
profess  and  abide  by,  are  warranted  by  Divine  authority,  then  they 
are  witnesses  for  God  ;  and  God  is,  by  their  means,  holding  forth  his 
cause  to  men,  and  calling  them  to  embrace  it. 

A  Sermon^  by  Robert  Chalmers  on  Psalm  Ixxiv.  32.    Pages  13,  29, 30. 

NO.  9.  OF  THE  DUTY  OF  ADHERING  FAITHFULLY  TO  A  TESTIMONY 
AGAINST  THE  ERRORS  AND  CORRUPTIONS  OF  THE  PRESENT  TIMES: 
AN  EXTRACT  FROM  THE  APPLICATTON  OF  A  DISCOURSE  DELIV- 
ERED BEFORE  THE  ASSOCIATE  SYNOD  IN  SCOTLAND,  IN  THE 
YEAR  1776,  BY  THE  REV.  ARCHIBALD  BRUCE,  PROFESSOR  OF  DI- 
VINITY IN  WHITBURN. 

In  the  first  place.  It  is  the  duty  of  all,  whether  ministers  or  pri- 
vate christians,  *'  to  be  fully  persuaded  in  their  own  minds,"  that  what 
they  appear  for  is  the  cause  of  God ;  or,  in  other  words,  that  it  is 
warranted  in  his  word,  and  conducive  to  his  glory  and  interests  in  the 
world  :  a  persuasion  ,  which  is  necessary,  not  only  with  regard  to  the 
general  articles  which  they  hold  in  common  with  others,  but  also  with 
regard  to  those  particulars,  wherein  they  are  distinguished  from  them  ; 
and  on  account  of  which  they  maintain  a  separate  communion.  With- 
out this  persuasion  on  scriptural  grounds,  their  separation  from  the 
national  churches  or  other  denominations  of  christians,  cannot  be  ef- 
fectually justified.  "  Whatsoever  is  not  of  faith,  is  sin."  It  is  a 
great  absurdity  and  iniquity  to  patronize  or  promote  any  separate 
cause,  in  opposition  to  fellow-protestants,  which,  we  are  not  maturely 
convinced  in  our  consciences,  is  the  LORD'S  cause.  Without  such 
a  conviction,  we  could  not  consider  what  we  do  or  suffer  for  that  cause, 
as  done  or  suffered  for  his  name's  sake  ;  nor  could  we  consistently 
seek  or  expect  his  blessing  and  countenance  in  such  a  course. 

Secondly,  It  is  necessary,  in  the  present  times,  to  be  remembered, 
that  *'  every  part  of  the  cause  of  God  and  truth,"  is  not  only  to  be  ac- 
knowledged, but  contended  for.  The  formal  ground  on  which  the 
doctrines  and  injunctions  of  the  REDEEMER  are  to  be  received  and 
contended  for,  is  their  being  revealed  or  enjoined  by  the  Divine  Law- 
giver of  the  church  ;  and  the  formal  reason,  for  which  errors  and  cor- 
ruptions must  be  testified  against  and  purged  out,  is  their  contrariety 
to  his  will  and  authority.  As  that  authority  is  the  highest,  and  as  it 
is  the  same  in  all  his  doctrines  and  injunctions,  it  must  be  an  offence 
of  the  most  dangerous  nature  to  pretend  to  set  aside  that  authority, 
or  to  violate  it  in  the  least  as  well  as  in  the  greatest.  According  to 
the  loose  casuistry  of  many  teachers  and  professors,  no  truth  is  to  be 


APPENDIX.  oU 

held  and  couLeiided  for,  siiiipJy  as  truth,  but  only  as  a  great  and  saviug 
truth  ;  nor  any  error  condemned  as  an  error,  but  because  it  is  a  great 
and  damnable  one  :  corruption  is  not  to  be  contended  against,  as  con- 
trary to  the  word  of  GOD  and  the  edification  of  Christ's  body  in  its 
progress  to  perfection,  but  merely  as  inconsistent  with  a  gracious  state, 
and  the  possibility  of  being  saved;— no  matter  what  become  of  the 
glory  of  God,  the  honor  and  authority  of  the  laws  of  CHRIST,  the 
public  good  and  purity  of  the  church  :  these  are  small  matters  ;  but 
man's  chief  and  highest  end  is  to  save  his  soul,  and  the  ultimate  scope 
of  his  religion  is  himself.  Abominable  pernicious  doctrine,  contrary 
to  the  answer  of  the  first  question  in  our  Catechism,  and  to  one  of  the 
first  principles  of  all  religion  !  And  what  scheme  can  be  more  narrow 
and  selfish  than  this,  with  all  its  pretensions  to  uncommon  charity  and 
liberality. 

The  Jatitudinarian  scheme,  which  prevails  so  much  in  the  Protes- 
tant churches,  whatever  may  be  the  views  of  its  promoters,  is  plainly 
at  war  with  the  principles  and  interests  of  the  reformation  ;  and,  if 
carried  to  all  its  extent,  must  tend  to  weaken  and  subvert  Christianity 
itself. 

''Christ's  small  things,"  said  Mr.  Livingston,  ''are  great  things. 
"  It  might  be  proved  to  you,  that  there  never  was  a  controversy  since 
the  beginning  of  the  world,  even  touching  the  most  momentous  truths, 
that  was  not  accounted  a  small  thing,  while  it  was  an  occasion  of 
trial." 

In  the  third  place.  Faithful  witnesses  for  God  must  pay  a  special 
attention  and  regard  to  what  may  be  denominated,  by  way  of  distinc- 
tion, the  present  trutl\  and  exert  themselves  for  maintaining  those 
parts  of  his  cause  and  testimony  which  are  more  immediately  controvert- 
ed, and  chiefly  opposed.  We  read  of  the  present  truth  which  chris- 
tians are  both  to  know  and  be  established  in,  2  Pet.  i.  12  ;  '*  and  the 
word  of  CHRIST'S  patience,"  which  some  are  commended  for  hav- 
ing kept,  Revel,  ii.  10.  Whatever  strikes  against  present  error  or 
sin ;  whatever  is  most  attacked  and  opposed  by  force  and  fraud ;  that 
which  professors  are  under  the  greatest  temptation  to  lose  or  relin- 
quish ;  that,  for  the  maintaining  of  which,  they  are  exposed  to  the 
greatest  hardships  and  sufferings,  and  to  a  peculiar  trial  of  their  faith 
and  patience,  may  be  so  called.  So  that  what  has  been  formerly  the 
present  truth,  and  the  word  of  Christ's  patience,  may  cease  to  be  so  j 
and  what  has  not  hitherto  been,  or  at  present  is  not,  may  become  such 
hereafter.  There  is  no  article,  whether  relating  to  the  appointed  faith^ 
worship,  government,  discipline,  or  manners  of  the  christian  church, 
but  may,  in  its  turn,  become  thus  eminently  distinguished.  Paul  terms 
that,  for  v/hich  he  was  presently  suffering  imprisonment  at  Rome,  "the 
testimony  of  our  Lord  Jesus,"  2  Tim.  i.  8.  John  applies  the  same  ex- 
pression to  the  cause  of  his  banishment  to  the  isle  of  Patmos,  and 
afterwards  to  the  particular  causes  of  contending  and  suflfering  under 
33 


514  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

antichrist,  Revel,  i.  2,  9.  xii.  17.  Hence  it  is  easy  to  see,  though 
many  consider  it  as  a  paradox,  that  there  may  be  multitudes  of  pro- 
fessors, and  many  real  saints  among  them  too,  when  yet  Christ's  wit- 
nesses may  be.  few,  very  few.  Churches  and  professors  therein  may 
retain  mauy  great  and  precious  articles  of  the  christian  profession  ; 
and  yet  the  testimony  of  Jesus,  in  this  view  of  it,  may  be  wanting 
among  them.  If  a  man  were  called  to  bear  witness  in  a  litigated 
cause,  though  he  should  speak  truth  in  all  other  points,  yet  if  he  con- 
tradicted it  in  the  single  point  in  debate,  or  if  he  withheld  his  evidence,  or 
could  say  nothing  to  the  purpose  relative  to  the  present  matter  in 
question,  his  testimony  would  go  for  nothing.  Thus,  though  persons 
should  be  faithful  in  many  things,  and  orthodox  in  a  thousand  articles; 
yet  if  they  be  not  so  in  those  which  are  presently  contested,  or  take  a 
wTong  side,  were  it  but  in  one  point,  on  which,  as  on  a  hinge,  the  tes- 
timony for  the  time  turns,  they  must  hereby  lose  the  honor  of  being 
faithful  witnesses,  or  helpers  of  the  cause  of  God,  in  the  manner  in 
which  it  is  then  stated,  and  in  the  precise  points  to  which  it  is  then 
in  the  manner  reduced.  What  praise  is  it  for  a  man  to  hold  fast  what 
none  attempts  to  take  from  him  ?  To  testify  where  there  is  no  strife ; 
to  contend  where  there  is  no  antagonist  or  quarrel ;  or  to  carry  on  a 
vigorous  war  in  time  of  profound  peace,  sounds  very  like  a  contradic- 
tion in  terms. 

Fourth,  It  is  the  duty  of  such  that  are  contending  for  truth  and  re- 
formation, to  take  the  Lord's  own  ways  for  promoting  his  service, 
such  ways  as  he  himself  appoints  to  approves.  They  must  be  attentive 
to  walk  in  ijlain  paths,  because  of  observers.  They  are  restricted 
to  the  use  of  such  methods  and  means  only  as  are  warrantable  and 
proper ;  and  the  use  of  any  other  must  tend  rather  to  mar  and  dis- 
grace, than  advance  the  cause  that  is  Divine  ;  which  has  no  need  either 
of  the  inventions  or  corruptions  of  men  to  be  called  in  to  its  aid. 
His  work  is  to  be  advanced  by  those  means  only  that  are  con- 
formable to  its  nature.  The  goodness  of  the  cause  or  of  the  intention 
will  not  sanctify  any  unwarrantable  mean.  When  David  and  his  com- 
pany put  the  ark  into  a  cart  to  bring  it  into  its  place,  they  intended 
to  do  it  honor ;  yet  the  manner  in  which  it  was  done  displeased  the 
Lord :  and  when  L^zzah,  out  of  pious  concern  for  the  ark,  put  forth 
his  haiid  and  touched  it,  when  it  shook  by  the  stumbling  of  the  oxen, 
the  Lord  smote  him,  and  made  a  breach  among  the  people ;  because 
all  this  was  seeking  him  out  of  the  due  order.  Not  by  might  nor  by 
power,  much  less  by  dishonest  wiles  and  stratagems,  or  wicked  Mach- 
iavelian  politics,  is  the  cause  of  true  religion  and  righteousness  to  be 
maintained  and  propagated  in  the  earth.  All  deceit,  fraud,  injustice, 
wrath,  bitterness,  railing,  evil  surmising,  detraction  and  evil-speakings, 
are  to  be  laid  aside,  as  utterly  improper,  having  nothing  to  do  in  any 
cause  that  is  the  Lord's.  Those,  who  have  received  the  ministry, 
ought  especially,  in  imitation  of  the  holy  apostles,  to  renounce  the 


APPENDIX.  515 

hidden  things  of  dishonesty  in  all  their  proceedings,  720^  walking  in 
craftiness,  not  handling  the  W07^d  of  God  deceitfully ;  hid,  by  man- 
ifestation of  the  truth,  recommending  themselves  to  every  man^s 
conscience  in  the  eight  of  God. 

Ffthly.  Zeal  for  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  interests  of  religion, 
becomes  all  who  espouse  his  cause.  These  are  objects  which  deserve 
to  be  promoted  with  the  utmost  earnestness  and  fervency  of  spirit. 
The  Redeemer  hath  expressed  the  highest  disgust  with  those  who  are 
neither  cold  nor  hot;  and  to  such  he  says,  "Be  zealous  and  repent." 
This  duty  stands  opposed  to  that  indolent  and  neutral  frame  of  heart, 
which  makes  persons  neglect,  or  coldly  improve  opportunities  of  do- 
ing good,  and  disposes  them  passively  and  tamely  to  suffer  the  pro- 
gress of  evil.  There  are  indeed  frequent  instances  of  a  blind,  partial, 
imprudent,  and  furious  zeal,with  which  some  have  been  affected  but  not 
well ;  but  this  is  no  reason  for  condemning  or  exploding  that  which 
is  enlightened",  regulated,  uniform,  disinterested,  and  upright.  The 
danger  of  a  false  and  unscriptural  zeal  should  teach  us  to  take  heed 
what  manner  of  spirit  we  are  of,  and  to  be  well  informed  and  assured 
of  the  cause  in  which  we  engage  :  but  when  these  are  duly  attended 
to,  what  can  be  more  reasonable,  more  conducive  to  public  good,  more 
becoming  the  christian  profession,  more  conformable  to  scripture  ex- 
amples, more  Christ-like  and  God-like,  than  to  be  exceedingly  jealous 
for  the  LORD  GOD  OF  HOSTS,  and  keen  in  opposition  to  those 
evils  which  dishonor  his  name,  and  injure  his  interests  and  people  ? 
Shall  this  be  reckoned  bigotry,  rage,  or  enthusiasm  ?  Let  the  Gal- 
lics of  the  world,  the  graceless  and  disaffected,  call  it  so,  if  they  please  ; 
but  the  friends  of  religion,  instead  of  being  ashamed,  have  cause  to 
glory  in  such  a  temper  and  spirit ;  and  may  say,  as  the  king  of  Isra- 
el, when  upbraided  for  rejoicing  publicly  before  the  ark,  "  I  will  be 
yet  more  vile  than  this."  What?  shall  men  be  eager  about  their 
own  little  temporal  affairs,  and  so  cool  and  negligent  about  the  great 
things  of  God  ?  Do  they  well  to  be  angry,  and  angry  sometimes 
even  unto  death,  when  they  meet  with  personal  injuries  and  affronts  ? 
and  have  they  no  resentment  nor  grief  to  spare,  when  the  MOST 
HIGH  is  insulted,  and  the  steps  of  his  ANOINTED  reproached  ? 
Shall  the  LORD'S  enemies  be  all  diligence  and  activity,  and  his  hel- 
pers remiss  and  slack  ?  Shall  some  venture  to  break  down  and  undo 
the  carved  work  of  Zion  with  axes  and  hammers,  while  the  professed 
friends  of  that  work  will  scarce  move  a  finger,  or  lift  up  a  tool  for 
repairing  the  sanctuary  ?  Or  while  the  former  roar  and  rage  like 
bears,  shall  the  latter  only  tremble  and  mourn  sore  like  doves  ? 

Sixth.  It  is  necessary  for  such  as  come  forth  on  the  Lord's  side 
against  the  mighty  to  have  an  undaunted  christian  resolution,  and  a 
holy,  not  presumptuous  boldness.  They  who  engage  in  warlike  enter- 
prises, must  not  shrink  from  difficulties,  nor  tremble  at  dangers.  The 
faithful  witnesses  of  Jesus  engage  in  a  most  arduous  and  perilous  con- 


516  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS. 

flict.  They  must  resolve  to  run  all  hazards  in  adhering  to  the  cause 
of  their  LORD  ;  they  must  be  willing,  as  good  soldiers  of  JESUS 
CHRIST,  to  endure  hardship,  to  suffer  the  loss  of  all  things  ;  not 
fainting  under  their  daily  cross,  nor  scrupling  even  resistance  unto 
blood,  "striving  against  sin;"  being  ready  "not  only  to  be  bound, 
but  to  die,"  for  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  ;  not  counting  even  life 
dear,  that  they  may  finish  their  course  with  joy.  If  they  have  an  im- 
pudent and  hardened  generation  of  men  to  deal  with,  inflexibly  defen- 
ding their  heinous  errors  and  backslidings,  and  obstinately  resisting 
the  truth;  they  must  not  be  afraid  of  their  faces,  but  make  "their 
foreheads  hard  against  their  foreheads  ;"  standing  as  "an  iron  pillar 
and  a  brazen  wall"  against  them  ;  opposing  their  groundless  presump- 
tion with  well  founded  confidence  ;  their  ferocity  with  true  christian 
i^ourage.  tempered  with  meekness  ;  their  obstinacy  in  evil  with  a  wise 
and  enlightened  zeal  and  an  unshaken  adherence  to  a  good  cause  ; 
their  insolent  threatening  with  a  holy  and  silent  contempt ;  and  their 
caxnal  boasting  with  the  heroic  triumphs  of  faith. 

Seventh.  Fidelity,  constancy,  and  persevering  patience  are  requir- 
ed of  such  as  have  appeared  on  the  Lord's  side  in  an  evil  time.  Ma- 
ny give  striking  evidences  of  cold  indifference  to  the  cause  of  God  and 
truth,  for  which  they  once  contended  with  much  ardor.  There  are 
few,  very  few,  whose  last  works  are  found  to  exceed  their  first.  "But 
he  who  endureth  to  the  end  shall  be  saved."  Our  LORD  has  there- 
fore repeated  that  charge  to  each  of  his  churches,  "  Be  thou  faithful 
unto  death  ;"  and  nothing  is  more  frequently  enjoined  in  scripture 
than  "to  stand  fast"  and  "  hold  fast."  Those,  who  have  opened  their 
mouth  to  the  Lord,  cannot,  must  not  go  back.  They  who  enlist  un- 
der his  banner  must  never  desire  a  discharge  in  that  war.  The  term 
of  their  engagement  is  till  death.  Though  those  who  seem  to  be  pil- 
lars should  reel  and  shake  :  though  stars  of  the  first  magnitude  should 
fall  :  though  standard-bearers  should  faint ;  though  ministers  or  saints 
of  the  greatest  usefulness  and  eminence  should  drop  one  after  another  ; 
though  ever  so  many  draw  back,  they  must  not  reckon  themselves  at 
liberty  to  do  so.  No  occurrences  in  providence ;  no  examples ;  no 
prevailing  power  of  temptation  -,  no  degree  of  suffering,  can  at  any 
time  excuse  a  shameful  defection  from  or  indifference,  in  his  cause. 

"  All  this  is  come  upon  us,  said  the  faithful  of  old,  yet  have  we  not 
forgotten  thee,  nor  have  we  dealt  falsely  in  thy  covenant.  Our  heart 
is  not  turned  back,  neither  have  our  steps  declined  from  thy  way, 
though  thou  hast  sore  broken  us  in  the  place  of  dragons,  and  cov- 
ered us  with  the  shadow  of  death,  Psal.  xliv.  17,  18,  19,  22. 

Some  have  opened  their  mouths,  and  subscribed  with  their  hands 
to  the  LORD,  in  a  manner  the  most  express  and  solemn.  They 
have  called  heaven  and  earth  to  record,  that  "they  shall  not  give  up 
themselves  to  a  detestable  indifferency  and  neutrality  in  the  cause  of 
God  ;  but  denying  themselves  and  their  own  things,  they  shall  above 


APPENDIX.  517 

all  things  seek  the  honor  of  God,  and  the  good  of  his  cause  and  peo- 
ple." And  has  the  GOD  of  hosts  heard  these  vows,  and  will  he  not 
inquire  after  the  performance  or  the  breach  of  them  ?  Shall  men 
break  their  covenant  with  God,  and  escape  ? 

Eighth.  Such  as  have  associated  together  to  promote  the  cau>.e  of 
God,  are  strictly  bound  to  maintain  unity  and  harmony  among  them- 
selves, and  to  guard  carefully  against  all  unseemly  contentions  and 
pernicious  divisions.  Amidst  all  our  regard  and  zeal,  we  must  not 
forget  what  is  due  to  peace.  The  wisiom  that  is  from  above  is 
peaceable  as  well  as  pure.  The  followers  of  Christ  are  enjoined  so 
far  as  in  them,  lies,  to  live  iieaceahly  ivith  all  men ;  and  they  are  es- 
pecially under  the  strictest  obligations  to  cultivate  peace  among  them- 
selves. Behold  how  good,  and  hotv  pleasant  it  is  for  brethren  to 
dicell  together  in  unity.  Animosities  and  divisions  dishearten  the 
friends  even  of  a  good  cause,  damping,  if  not  extinguishing  the  fervor 
of  public  spirit.  What  advantages,  what  matter  of  triumph,  have 
the  contentions  of  the  Lord's  witnesses  among  themselves  afforded  to 
their  adversaries  !  These  contentions  also  furnish  the  neutral  and  in- 
different with  a  plausible,  though  in  itself  a  very  weak,  plea  for  not 
appearing  on  the  side  of  (what  they  cannot  deny  to  be)  the  LORD'S 
cause,  that  its  professed  adherents  are  not  agreed  or  at  one  among 
themselves.  These  contentions  prove  offensive  and  an  occasion  of 
stumbling  to  the  weak.  •  Many  sigh  and  go  backward ;  while  others 
are  put  to  a  painful  silence,  and  have  their  minds  filled  with  discou- 
raging reflections.  For  the  divisions  of  Reuben  there  were  great 
thoughts  of  heart.  Not  as  if  all  strivings,  or  even  separations,  were 
unwarrantable  or  prejudicial  to  the  LORD'S  cause  :  In  many  cases, 
they  may  be  necessary  means  for  its  maintenance  ;  nor  as  if  any  sin- 
ful compliances  were  ever  allowable  to  prevent  disturbances  ;  or  any 
bonds  between  men  or  christians  so  sacred,  as  not  to  yield  to  the 
superior  force  of  truth  and  duty.  But  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  ought 
to  be  kept  in  the  bond  of  peace.  Nothing  is  more  'contrary  to  the 
gospel,  than  implacable  animosities,  personal  quarrels  and  resent- 
ments, a  schismatical  spirit,  and  causeless  divisions  :  such  as  too  often 
abound  even  under  the  specious  pretence  of  conscience  and  singular 
faithfulness.  The  apostle  enjoins  us  to  mark  those  who  cause  divi- 
sions, and  avoid  them.  All  who  truly  wish  well  to  Jerusalem  should 
ever  earnestly  pray  for,  and  assiduously  promote  peace  within  her 
walls ;  and,  in  so  doing,  they  seek  her  felicity. 

Finally,  It  is  especially  the  duty  of  such  as  are  maintaining  the 
distinguishing  profession  of  a  zealous  adherence  to  the  cause  of  truth 
and  reformation,  to  adorn  the  doctrine  of  GOD  their  Saviour,  and 
that  holy  profession  by  a  suitable  life  and  conversation.  No  sys- 
tem of  truth  however  pure,  no  belief  however  orthodox,  no  preten- 
sions to  zeal  and  public  spirit,  can  ever  compensate  for  the  want  of 
the  fruits  of  holiness,  so  glorifying  to  God,  and  so  profitable  to  men. 


518  ALEXANDER  AND  RUFUS, 

A  man's  faith  must  be  shown  and  justified  by  his  works,  and  by  works 
must  faith  be  made  perfect.  There  is  no  method  so  effectual  to  jus- 
tify a  good  profession  before  the  world,  as  that  of  a  good  hfe.  Man- 
kind are  ever  readier  to  form  their  opinion  of  any  profession  by  the 
lives  and  actions  of  those  who  adhere  to  it,  than  by  examining  the 
truth  or  falsehood  of  its  principles.  It  is  indeed  naturally  and  rea- 
sonably expected,  that  they  who  profess  more  than  others,  should  also 
do  more  than  others.  This  being  the  case,  professors  should  be  more 
on  their  guard,  and  should  endeavor,  by  well  doing,  to  put  to  silence 
the  ignorance  of  foolish  men.     True  Patriotism,  pages  151 — 180. 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    101 2  01 029  9487 


